MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280640464 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.871917

Psychosomatic Symptoms in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients and Its Relation With Using Complementary and Alternative Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Study in Southeast Iran

2022· article· en· W4280640464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahlagha Dehghan, Fatemeh Hoseini, Mohammad Ali Zakeri

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxietyDepression (economics)Cross-sectional studyPopulationCancerPsychiatryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Cancer patients face various problems and complications, which they address through various complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between CAM and psychosomatic symptoms in terminally ill cancer patients. Methods This cross-sectional study was performed on 221 terminally ill cancer patients (based on metastatic stage and according to the physicin diagnosis) in southeastern Iran. Convenience sampling was used to select terminally ill cancer patients. Using questionnaires like the demographic and clinical information questionnaire, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), CAM questionnaire and satisfaction with the use of CAM, the researcher was able to compile a comprehensive picture of the population. Results The mean age of the participants was 51.66 ± 13.34 years. The majority of the samples were female, married, educated, and unemployed. The mean score for the physical symptoms of the participants according to ESAS was 22.25 ± 17.57 which was less than the midpoint of the scale (the possible score of ESAS was 0–100). Only 2.7% ( n = 6) and 0.9% ( n = 2) of the participants had mild and moderate anxiety, respectively, and the other participants' anxiety levels were normal. Only 7.7% ( n = 17) and 4.1% ( n = 9) of the participants had mild and moderate depression, respectively, and the other participants' depression levels were normal. Last year, 87.3% of the participants used at least one type of CAM. Aside from prayer, 42.1% of the participants used at least one type of CAM in the last year. Prayer was used by 83.7% of the participants, medicinal plants by 35.8%, massage by 9.5%, dietary supplements by 3.6%, wet cupping by 3.2%, relaxation and meditation by 2.7%, dry cupping by 2.4%, and acupuncture by 0.5%. The common reason for using CAM was to reduce the stress and anxiety caused by cancer and to treat it. There were no significant differences in physical and psychological symptoms between the CAM-users and non-CAM users. Conclusion Patients with cancer have a relatively low level of psychosomatic symptoms, and the primary reason for using CAM was to relieve stress and anxiety associated with cancer and treat it. However, psychosomatic symptoms were the same for CAM and non-CAM users. Because so many people with cancer use CAM, future studies should look into why and how CAM is used.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207