Investigating the Effect of Cognitive-behavioral Stress Management on Occupational Performance among Women with Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment of breast cancer can be accompanied by long-term consequences affecting women’s participation in many tasks. Objective: This study aimed to assess the effect of cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) program on occupational performance of women with breast cancer. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, conducted between Feb 3 and Oct 26, 2016, 104 women with breast cancer who had referred to Imam Khomeini clinic in Hamadan, and who fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20-60 years old, married, suffering from grade 1-3 breast cancer with a history of recent surgery) were enrolled. They were randomly divided into two groups of 52 using a permuted block size of four. The intervention group took part in four 60-minute sessions of CBSM over four weeks. The study data were collected using a demographic information form and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. The statistical analyst was masked to intervention allocation. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: A significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding the mean scores of occupational performance (p=0.02) and satisfaction (p=0.005) after the intervention. Each variable was measured at three time points (before the intervention, immediately and 2 weeks after intervention). A significant difference was observed in the two groups’ mean scores of performance (p=0.026) and satisfaction (p=0.01), irrespective of the time of assessment. Conclusion: The CBSM program promoted the occupational performance immediately and two weeks after the intervention in women with breast cancer. This technique can be used as a complementary method alongside medical therapies in oncology centers.
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 | 0.002 | 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".