A Qualitative Study of a Compassion, Presence, and Resilience Training for Oncology Interprofessional Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The well-being of health care providers may be challenged by their work, with evidence that oncology health care providers are a high-risk group for burnout. The present qualitative pilot study evaluated a mindfulness-based group intervention, referred to as Compassion, Presence, and Resilience Training (CPR-T), for oncology interprofessional teams. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the subjective experience of oncology health care providers receiving CPR-T and their perceptions of its benefits, risks, or challenges. The CPR-T was delivered to providers from two oncology teams in a large cancer center in Canada. Ten of these providers participated in semistructured interviews 1 to 5 months after completing the CPR-T. The interview transcripts were coded using a thematic analysis strategy. Five benefits of the CPR-T were identified: learning to pause, acquiring a working definition of stress and self-care, becoming fully present, building self-compassion, and receiving organizational acknowledgment and recognition of stress. In addition, two participant-identified challenges were recognized: sharing vulnerability within interprofessional teams and committing to a sitting meditation practice. These findings demonstrate positive transformations as a result of the CPR-T, as well as important challenges, and have important implications for holistic health care practice in oncology. Further research is necessary to validate the findings of this explorative study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".