Cocreating Meaning Through Expressive Writing and Reading for Cancer Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Caregivers of patients with cancer cope with socioemotional challenges, which can adversely affect their well-being. We developed an intervention, expressive writing and reading (EWR), to promote emotional processing and social connectedness among caregivers. In a single-arm pilot study, we assessed its feasibility and perceived usefulness. METHODS: Caregivers participated in weekly 1.5-hour EWR workshops offered over 20 weeks. After 4 sessions, they completed semistructured interviews, which were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis. FINDINGS: Of 65 caregivers approached, 25 were eligible, 18 consented, and 9 (50%) caregivers completed at least 4 workshops and the interview. Their responses revealed 3 themes: "inner processing," "interpersonal learning," and "enhanced processing and preparedness." Perceived benefits of EWR included emotional and cognitive processing (individual and collaborative), learning from the emotions and experiences of other caregivers, and preparing for upcoming challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Expressive writing and reading can be a safe and cost-effective supportive intervention for caregivers of patients with cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".