A Critical Analysis of the Delivery of a Psychosocial Workshop for Cancer Survivors with Lymphedema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary lymphedema is a chronic condition that can develop after the treatment of cancer and can often lead to negative psychological and social impairments. When dealing with chronic illness, hoping and coping are interdependent. Previous research has assessed the outcomes of workshops designed to enhance hope but has not examined the workshop itself to determine how those outcomes were achieved. This study deconstructs the Living Hopefully with Lymphedema workshop to identify (1) what aspects of the workshop facilitated or interfered with therapeutic progress, (2) key aspects of facilitation that contributed to the functioning of the workshop, and (3) how participants responded to the workshop. Two three-day workshops were attended by a total of 19 participants. All sessions were audio taped and the recordings analyzed. Theoretical coding revealed a central theme focused on the importance of a safe environment within the workshop. Facilitators and participants worked together to co-create, maintain, and protect a safe space in which to engage in therapy. Findings are discussed in relation to key aspects of facilitation and the participants’ response to the workshops. Recommendations for future workshop development are presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".