The Effect of a Complementary Therapy Education Seminar on Support Persons of Individuals with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Complementary therapy (CT) use is prevalent among individuals living with cancer, who often consult family and friends (i.e., support persons) in making decisions about CT. This study examines the effect of an education seminar for adult cancer patients and support persons on the support persons' use, knowledge, and decision-making processes related to CT. Design: A patient education seminar that included support persons was developed and evaluated as part of a CT decision support research program. Survey data were collected before and after the education seminar to examine its impact on support persons' knowledge and use of CT, as well as their engagement in the CT decision-making process. Setting: The study was conducted in Western Canada. Subjects: 62 adult support persons. Interventions: Participants attended a 4-h CT education seminar at one in four provincial cancer centers. The seminar provided recommendations regarding how to make informed decisions about CT, where to find credible information, and key issues to consider to avoid potential risks of CT use. The evidence related to popular CT was also reviewed. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was support persons' CT knowledge. Secondary outcomes included CT use, information-seeking behavior, decision self-efficacy, decision conflict, and distress. Results: A significant increase in support persons' CT knowledge was observed, as well as improved confidence in CT decision making. There was no significant difference in participants' CT use following the education seminar. Most indicated they would continue to locate information about CT using the Internet. A significant decrease in support persons' decisional conflict was reported; however, there were no significant change in distress related to CT decision making. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of including support persons in patient education related to CT and the positive impact on their knowledge and treatment decision-making processes. No significant change in CT use, information seeking behavior and distress related to CT decisions, however, was observed in the study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".