Assessing the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management (CBSM) on Anxiety and Depression of Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral stress therapy on stress, depression and distress in patients with cancer. Cases Report: In a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients (Aged 32-70 years, progression of their disease was at levels 1 to 3, high cycle education, and 3 months of chemotherapy, of which 40, were randomly available from this group (20 experimental and 20 Control group). The instrument was a McGill Pain Questionnaire (1997) and the Hazards and Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Data were analyzed using two methods of Kolmogorov-Smirnov inferential statistics and multivariate analysis of covariance using software software Spss17. Conclusion: Correlation analysis showed that the experimental group had a significant reduction in depression and anxiety in the posttest after the control group compared with the control group. The short-term cognitive-behavioral stress management program can reduce, depression and anxiety in cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".