Evaluation of the Pathways for Survivors Program to Address Breast Cancer Survivorship–Associated Distress: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer frequently experience escalation of anxiety after completing curative treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the acceptability and psychological impact of a 1-day workshop to emphasize behavioral strategies involving intention and self-efficacy. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors who attended a 1-day Pathways for Survivors workshop provided feedback and completed electronic quality of life (QOL) questionnaires at baseline, 1 and 6 weeks, and 6 months after the workshop. Attendees' baseline QOL scores were compared to follow-up (FUP) scores. Scores from patients receiving routine FUP care were also compiled as a reference population. RESULTS: In total, 77 patients attended 1 of 9 workshops. The mean satisfaction score was 9.7 out of 10 for the workshop and 9.96 out of 10 for the moderator. Participants' baseline mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety and depression scores were 57.8 (SD 6.9) and 55.3 (SD 7.5), respectively, which were significantly higher than those of patients receiving routine FUP care (49.1, SD 8.3 and 47.3 SD 8.0, respectively). PROMIS anxiety and depression scores decreased, and the Happiness Index Profile (HIP-10) score-measuring intention and resiliency-increased significantly at 1- and 6-week FUPs. CONCLUSIONS: The Pathways for Survivors program was favorably received. Anxiety and depression decreased significantly at 1- and 6-weeks after the workshop and remained below baseline at 6 months. Increased HIP-10 scores suggest that patients acquired and implemented skills from the workshop. A 1-day workshop led by a lay moderator significantly improved several psychological measures, suggesting that it may be a useful and time-efficient strategy to improve QOL in breast cancer survivors. We are investigating whether an abbreviated "booster" of the intervention at a later date could further improve and maintain QOL gains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".