Phase II trial of a depression self-care intervention for adult cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supported self-care interventions are a low-intensity treatment for depression that has received little research attention in the cancer population. This is a phase II intervention only study to test the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a depression self-care intervention for cancer patients who have completed their primary treatment and have moderate depressive symptoms. The self-care intervention was adapted from a successful model for people with chronic physical conditions, following focus groups with cancer care professionals and patients. The support was delivered by telephone by a trained lay coach who provided up to 8 weekly coaching contacts. A variety of recruitment methods were tested; those with the highest yield of eligible subjects per research staff time were electronic mailings to community support group members and social media posting. Sixty-eight people were contacted about the study over an 11-month period, of whom 34 (49%) were eligible; 32 were enrolled (94% recruitment rate); and 25 completed 2-month follow-up (78% retention). The mean severity of PHQ-9 depression decreased significantly from screening to 2 months (12.8 to 7.0, p < .0001). The intervention is a promising treatment option for cancer survivors, demonstrating sufficient effectiveness and feasibility to proceed with a phase III clinical trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".