Cancer, now what? A cross-sectional study examining physical symptoms, subjective well-being, and psychological flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The impact of cancer extends beyond treatment and evaluating the adverse psychological effects in survivors is important.We examined: (1) the relationship between diagnosis, relapse, and subjective well-being using a short and a holistic measure of well-being, including comparisons between our sample and established norms; (2) if reported physical symptoms were related to components of subjective well-being; and (3) if increased psychological flexibility predicted overall subjective well-being.Methods: In total, 316 survivors completed online questionnaires to assess cancer, physical health (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-R; ESAS-R), subjective well-being (Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving; CIT; Satisfaction with Life Scale; SWLS) and psychological flexibility (Comprehensive Assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy).Results: Relative to ESAS-R cut-points (Oldenmenger et al., 2013), participants reported only moderate levels of tiredness and slightly elevated drowsiness, depression, and anxiety; participants reported more problems with psychological health.SWLS scores were lower than published norms (M = 18.23,SD = 8.23) and a relapse was associated with the lowest SWLS scores (M = 16.95,SD = 7.72).There were differences in thriving between participants and age-matched norms (Su et al., 2014).Participants reported lower community involvement, respect, engagement with activities, skill mastery, sense of accomplishment, self-worth, self-efficacy, autonomy, purpose, optimism, subjective well-being, and positive emotions coupled with higher loneliness and negative emotions.In regression analysis, two components of psychological flexibility, Openness to Experience, t = 2.50, p < 0.13, = -0.18,and Valued Action, t = 7.08, p < 0.001, = -0.47,predicted 28.8% of the variability in total CIT scores, beyond the effects of demographic and disease characteristics and reported physical symptoms. Conclusion:Cancer is an isolating experience, with the adverse psychological effects that impact subjective well-being
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".