Cancer!? I Don't Have Time for That: Impact of a Psychosocial Intervention for Young Adults with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Young adult oncology has gained momentum in recognizing the unique medical and psychosocial needs of the population of adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAC). However, many of their psychosocial needs remain unmet and we are yet to identify how clinical or research programs can be tailored to meet these needs. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a cognitive-behavioral intervention adapted to meet the psychosocial needs and issues of AYAC and delivered either through Skype or face-to-face sessions against a control condition. METHODS: A total of 113 AYAC aged between 18 and 39 years were randomly assigned to a brief three-session intervention or control/care-as-usual group. They were then assessed at three time points of baseline (time 1), post (time 2), and 3-month postintervention (time 3) using self-report questionnaires targeting overall outcomes of mood/emotional well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and specific outcomes of illness-related self-efficacy and family/social and sexual relationship well-being. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences were obtained from time 1 to time 2 on outcomes of social/family and sexual relationship well-being, whereas groups did not differ from time 2 to time 3. Within-group results from time 1 to time 2 showed significant improvements in sexual esteem for both groups, whereas only AYAC of the intervention group significantly improved on outcomes of anxiety, overall mood/emotional well-being and HRQOL. In addition, improvements in self-efficacy were obtained only for the intervention group from time 2 to time 3. CONCLUSION: When compared with a control/care-as-usual condition, the intervention had a positive impact on psychological and relationship well-being. Results suggested that the intervention was beneficial and clinically relevant to the population of AYAC.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".