MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Emotion and Symptom-focused Engagement (EASE): A randomized pilot trial of an integrated psychosocial and palliative care intervention for individuals with acute leukemia (AL).

2017· article· en· W2890726222 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Rodin, Carmine Malfitano, Anne Rydall, Christopher Lo, Aaron D. Schimmer, Charles R. Marmar, Camilla Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPalliative careRandomized controlled trialPopulationDistressPhysical therapyClinical endpointQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Psychological interventionClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7041 Background: Individuals diagnosed with AL may experience severe physical and psychological distress due to the illness and its treatment, the threat of relapse and treatment failure, and a high risk of mortality. To alleviate psychological and physical distress in this population, we developed a novel, 8-week, manualized intervention called EASE. This includes: 1) EASE-psy- a tailored psychotherapeutic component to reduce psychological distress; and 2) EASE-phys-symptom screening, with moderate to severe physical symptoms triggering early palliative care. Methods: To assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of EASE, patients were recruited within 2 weeks of admission to a comprehensive cancer center and randomized to receive either EASE or usual care (UC). Physical and psychological symptoms were assessed at baseline, 4, 8 (primary endpoint), and 12 weeks. Intervention patients received 6-10 psychotherapy sessions over 8 weeks, weekly assessment of physical symptoms, and consultation and follow-up by palliative care, when needed. One-way ANOVA was performed to assess mean change scores over time between groups. Results: Forty-two patients were randomized to EASE (n = 22) or UC (n = 20). Predefined feasibility outcomes were all met: > 86% (19/22) of EASE participants (goal > 64%) completed > 50% of proposed EASE-psy sessions; 64% (14/22) completed symptom screenings (goal > 50%); and 100% of those with moderate to severe symptoms had > 1 meeting with the EASE-phys team (goal 100%). There were statistically significant findings favoring EASE vs. UC for satisfaction with care at 8 and 12 weeks (Δ: -3.12 vs 7.39, p < 0.04; -6.1910 vs 0.0125 p < 0.03). There were trends favoring EASE vs. UC for traumatic stress symptoms, depressive symptoms, quality of life, attachment security, and number, severity, and distress related to physical symptoms at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Conclusions: Although not powered for statistical significance, this randomized pilot trial of EASE for AL showed promising reductions in psychological and physical distress and supports the feasibility and need for a larger randomized controlled trial. Clinical trial information: NCT02353559.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→