The Effectiveness of a Men-only Supportive Expressive Therapy Group Intervention for Psychosocial Health Outcomes in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: A 6-month longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: An increasing number of gastrointestinal cancer (GI) patients suffer from the side effects of cancer treatment that can affect their psychosocial health outcomes such as mood states and quality of life. Despite its demonstrated usefulness in female cancer patients, the Supportive Expressive Group Therapy (SEGT) has not been tested in male cancer patients. The current study sought to examine the longitudinal effects of a professionally-led, men-only supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT) on mood states, coping, and quality of life (QoL) in male GI cancer patients. Methods: Male GI cancer patients (n=31), at different stages of cancer treatment, were recruited from an ongoing men-only biweekly GI cancer SEGT. Data were collected at baseline (before or near the beginning of group attendance) and at three months and six months follow-up. All outcomes were patient-reported and included demographic data as well as the validated questionnaires: Profile of Mood States (POMS) for mood states, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) for QoL, and Ways of Coping-cancer version (WOC) for coping. Linear mixed models were used to examine the change in the outcomes over time. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d. Results: The Anxiety (p=.04; d=0.70), Depression (p=.03; d=0.93) and Anger (p=.04; d=1.28) subscales of the POMS decreased between baseline and six months. Participants also reported improvements in coping through Distancing (distancing oneself from negative thoughts, being more accepting of the situation, and looking for positives) of the WOC (p=.04; d=0.4) between baseline and six months. There was no change in any of the FACT subscales (QoL) over time. Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the effects of a SEGT intervention in male cancer patients. Participation in the intervention was associated with improved mood states and coping in male GI cancer patients; however, there was no change in measures of QoL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".