A randomized controlled trial of a supportive expressive group intervention for women with a family history of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Women with a family history of breast cancer (BC) often overestimate their BC risk. Heightened psychological distress may interfere with risk comprehension and screening adherence. The primary purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of a 12-week manual-based supportive-expressive (SE) group intervention for this population. METHODS: Using a randomized control trial design, this study compared two interventions: a standard risk-counseling arm (RC) compared with that plus SE group intervention. The primary study outcome was BC anxiety. Secondary outcomes included psychosocial functioning, risk comprehension, BC knowledge, and screening behaviors. RESULTS: A total of 161 women with a family history of BC were randomized into SE (N = 108) or RC (N = 53). Participants in both study arms significantly improved on measures of BC anxiety, psychosocial functioning, risk comprehension, and BC knowledge, with no statistical difference between study arms. Benefits were sustained at 1 year. BC screening rates were high in both arms at baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: SE group therapy as an added intervention to the risk counseling was well-received, however, did not demonstrate superiority to RC alone. Future studies on treatment matching are needed to further our understanding of interventions that can support women with a family history of BC to work through residual issues, including loss and grief.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".