MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288036537 · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000002003

Impact of the CBT-Meno protocol on menopause-specific beliefs, dysfunctional attitudes, and coping behaviors

2022· article· en· W4288036537 on OpenAlexaff
Eleanor Donegan, Benício N. Frey, Randi E. McCabe, David L. Streiner, Donna M. Fedorkow, Melissa Furtado, Sheryl M. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Movement DisordersSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMenopauseMedicineVasomotorHot flashDysfunctional familyBeck Depression InventoryClinical psychologyClimactericDepression (economics)PsychiatryPhysical therapyInternal medicineAnxietyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A recent clinical trial demonstrated that a group cognitive-behavioral therapy protocol for menopause (CBT-Meno; Green et al. Menopause 2019;26(9):972-980) was effective in reducing menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor and depressive symptoms. The current analyses evaluated the effectiveness of CBT-Meno in improving menopause-specific beliefs, dysfunctional attitudes associated with depression, and menopause-specific behaviors. METHODS: In a subset of participants from the larger trial, women assigned to CBT-Meno or waitlist and who had completed symptom, cognitive, and behavioral measures at least at baseline were included. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 12 weeks after baseline, and 3 months after treatment. Measures included the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, the vasomotor subscale of the Greene Climacteric Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory II, the Hot Flush Beliefs Scale, the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale, and the Hot Flush Behavior Scale (HFBehS). RESULTS: As reported in the main study outcomes (Green et al. Menopause 2019;26(9):972-980), CBT-Meno participants reported greater improvements than waitlist in terms of vasomotor symptom interference and depressive symptoms (Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, Beck Depression Inventory II; partial eta-squared [ η2p ] = 0.15-0.18), although not in vasomotor severity (Greene Climacteric Scale [vasomotor subscale]; η2p = 0.05). CBT-Meno participants reported greater improvements than waitlist in menopause-specific beliefs (Hot Flush Beliefs Scale; η2p = 0.08-0.12), dysfunctional attitudes (Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale; η2p = 0.09), and menopause-specific behaviors (HFBehS; η2p = 0.08-0.12). Within-group analyses showed improvements in CBT-Meno on all variables ( d = 0.38-1.26) except in cooling strategies ( d = 0.18). Gains in CBT-Meno were maintained from posttreatment to 3-month follow-up, although a decrease in positive coping behaviors was observed (HFBehS-positive behavior subscale; d = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The CBT-Meno protocol is effective in improving menopause-related symptoms and a broader range of outcomes, including problematic beliefs about menopause, dysfunctional attitudes related to depression, and menopause-specific behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause SocietySame topicMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207