Preliminary Efficacy of an Occupation-Oriented Purpose in Life Intervention After Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Purpose in life is important to health and well-being; purpose disruption often goes unidentified after breast cancer. Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy of a purpose renewal intervention and utility of a screening question for identifying people with purpose-related distress. Method. In this prospective pretest-posttest study, participants with breast cancer received an 8-session purpose renewal group intervention (n = 35). Participants completed standardized measures of meaning and purpose at pretest, posttest, and two-month follow-up and a forced-choice Purpose Status Question (PSQ) at pretest. Findings. Participants made statistically significant pretest-to-posttest and pretest-to-follow-up improvements. The PSQ demonstrated construct validity: 40% of participants lacked purpose direction at pretest and this subgroup made significantly greater improvements than participants who reported purpose direction at pretest. Implications. The PSQ warrants further study as a screener to identify people with purpose-related distress. Many breast cancer survivors may benefit from a purpose in life intervention; a subgroup may benefit more.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".