Meaning-centered group psychotherapy in Portuguese cancer patients: A pilot exploratory trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility of a meaning-centered group psychotherapy (MCGP) adaptation in a sample of Portuguese cancer patients. METHOD: The study was carried out according to four steps: 1st - Transcultural adaptation and validation (focus groups); 2nd - Preliminary study with MCGP original version (to test its feasibility); 3rd - Adaptation of MCGP original version to a 4-session version (and internal pilot study); and 4th - Pilot exploratory trial (MCGP-4 session version), implemented between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Inclusion criteria were >18 years, psychological complaints, and difficulty to adapt to cancer. Allocation was according to participants' preference: MCGP vs. care as usual (CAU). Primary outcomes were: MCGP adapted version improved quality of life (QoL) and spiritual well-being; secondary outcomes were improvement of depression, anxiety, and distress. Assessments were done at baseline (T1) and 1 month after (T2), with self-report socio-demographic and clinical questionnaires, Distress Thermometer (DT), McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp-12), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and its subscales (HADS - HADS-D, HADS-A). RESULTS: In the 1st step, and through focus groups, the manual was reformulated and tested. The preliminary study (2nd step) with MCGP original version showed a high number of dropouts which could jeopardize the study and, after reframing the sessions content, MCGP was adapted to a 4-session version, and its feasibility was tested by an internal pilot study (3rd step). The pilot exploratory trial (4th step) had 91 participants. Most socio-demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups (51: MCGP; 40: CAU) had no statistically significant differences. A comparison between the two groups at T2 showed that the MCGP group scored significantly higher in the general (U = 552.00, P < 0.001), and existential (U = 727.50, P = 0.018) domains and total score (U = 717.50, P = 0.015) of QoL, and CAU presented statistical higher levels in DT (U = 608.50, P = 0.001). Comparing the groups between T1 and T2, the MCGP group had a statistically significant improvement in the general (Z = -3.67, P < 0.001) and psychosocial (Z = -2.89, P = 0.004) domains and total score (Z = -2.71, P = 0.007) of QoL, and a statistically significant decrease in DT (Z = -2.40, P = 0.016). In terms of group effects, the MCGP group presented increased general (b = 1.42, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.179), and support (b = 0.80, P = 0.045, η2p = 0.048) domains and total score (b = 0.81, P = 0.013, η2p = 0.073) of QoL (small to elevated dimensions), and decreased levels of depression (b = -1.14, P = 0.044, η2p = 0.048), and distress (b = -1.38, P = 0.001, η2p = 0.127) (small to medium dimensions), compared with CAU. At T2, participants who attended ≥3 sessions (n = 38) had a statistically significant higher score in the general domain (U = 130.50, P = 0.009) of QoL, comparing with those who attended 1 or 2 sessions (n = 13). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study supports the benefits of an MCGP adapted version in improving QoL and psychologic well-being. More studies are necessary to address the limitations of this pilot exploratory trial, as its small sample size.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".