Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Intervention for Young Adults with Cancer: A Pilot Mixed-Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Group mindfulness-based interventions are emerging as a promising, nonstigmatizing, and cost-effective strategy that may improve the well-being of individuals living with cancer. This study is a pilot pre–post mixed-method study to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effects of an 8-week Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy group for Young Adults with Cancer (YA-MBCT). Methods: We approached young adults with cancer, who enrolled in YA-MBCT groups, offered at a large cancer hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through attendance rate and a postintervention satisfaction scale. Psychosocial outcomes were evaluated with a pre–post questionnaire package, with validated self-report measures, assessing depression, anxiety, perceived stress, quality of life, mindfulness, and self-compassion. Qualitative interviews were completed among a subset of participants to gain additional feedback. Results: Participants were 70 young adults with cancer, recruited from five YA-MBCT groups. Sixty participants (85%) attended a minimum of six of eight sessions, and overall satisfaction rates were high. All psychosocial outcomes demonstrated statistically significant changes ( p < 0.01), with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d > 0.5). Qualitative interviews ( n = 14) demonstrated overall positive views about the intervention, and provided insight into unique age-specific benefits, including reducing fear of cancer recurrence, improving body image, and creating a sense of belonging. Conclusion: The YA-MBCT is feasible and acceptable among young adults with cancer, with the potential to improve psychosocial outcomes. Our preliminary results should be replicated with larger studies with an active control group.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".