MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186504943 · doi:10.1097/or9.0000000000000058

Comparing online support groups with psychoeducation versus psychoeducation alone for distressed breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3186504943 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Baydoun, Michael Speca, Jill Taylor‐Brown, Joanne Stephen, Katherine-Ann Piedalue, Jill Turner, Linda E. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosocial Oncology Research and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoeducationRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerMoodCoping (psychology)MedicineProfile of mood statesPsychological interventionClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Online support groups are one forum that can help breast cancer survivors cope with negative mood states, but little is known about their effects compared to self-administered psycho-educational interventions. This randomized controlled trial compared the effects of synchronous, text-based professionally led online support groups (OSGs) plus a psychoeducational coping skills training program, called Nucare, versus Nucare alone in distressed survivors of breast cancer. Methods: Consented participants were randomized to an OSG (90-minute once-weekly session for 12 weeks) plus home-based Nucare or a self-directed home-based Nucare intervention alone. The primary outcome was the Profile of Mood States-Short Form – Total Mood Disturbance score (POMS-TMD). Secondary outcomes included measures of anxiety, depression, coping, illness intrusiveness, and loneliness. Outcomes were measured before and after the intervention, and 3 months post-intervention (follow-up). Results: One hundred twenty-five stage I–III breast cancer survivors enrolled with a mean age of 53 years (OSG plus Nucare [n = 68]; Nucare alone [n = 57]). There was a significant improvement in POMS-TMD scores among the entire study sample during the intervention period ( Cohen's d = 0.25 , P = .002 ), which was maintained over follow-up. The group × time interactions on POMS-TMD over the intervention and follow-up periods were not significant (all Ps > .05), indicating neither group outperformed the other. Group x time interactions on three coping domains (positive reframing, use of instrumental support, self-blame) favored Nucare alone over OSG plus Nucare during the intervention period (Cohen's d ranged from 0.40 to 0.48) , while group x time interactions over the follow-up period favored OSG plus Nucare over Nucare alone on loneliness (Cohen's d = 0.34) and one coping domain (self-blame) (Cohen's d = 0.58) . Anxiety, depression, and illness intrusiveness were not significantly different between groups at any time point ( all Ps > .05 ). Conclusion: OSGs plus Nucare were not found superior to Nucare alone in improving mood disturbance. Mood improvement among the entire sample indicates that regular use of either Nucare alone or in combination with OSGs may have the potential to ameliorate negative mood states in breast cancer survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosocial Oncology Research and PracticeSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207