Examining the effecting of a life-coaching intervention on breast cancer survivors’ post treatment adjustment: protocol of a parallel group randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The growing number of breast cancer survivors in the country has warranted health interventions targeted to mitigate the bio-psychosocial impact associated with a cancer diagnosis and the toxicities of oncological treatments. Life coaching is a widely adopted intervention strategy to promote an individual’s positive psychological adaptation, self-management, and self-confidence. This present study will investigate whether a life coaching intervention with group and individual coaching components can significantly improve quality of life (QoL) and post traumatic growth among breast cancer survivors. Methods: This study is a randomized controlled trial with three parallel study arms. A prospective sample size of 120 adult breast cancer survivors will be randomized into one of the three study groups either to receive: 1) group coaching following by individual coaching sessions; 2) group coaching sessions only; or 3) routine care. The primary outcome evaluates post traumatic growth and secondary outcomes assess QoL and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Data collection will occur at baseline (T0) and at 3 weeks (T1), and at 18 weeks (T2). A follow-up assessment will occur at 30 weeks (T3). Conclusions: This is the first randomized control trial to address post traumatic growth among breast cancer survivors using a life coaching intervention. If positive, the results of this study could inform intervention development that benefits the health of cancer survivors. Trial registration: This trial is ethically approved and registered with clinical trial registry (NCT05020561).
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 | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.007 |
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".