“A Hippo Out of Water”: A Qualitative Inquiry of How Cancer Survivors Experienced In-Person and Remote-Delivered Mind-Body Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mind-body therapies (MBTs) are an effective treatment option for people living with and surviving from cancer to help manage unwanted physical and psychological symptoms and side-effects related to treatment and the illness itself. Many of these structured MBTs, such as Mindfulness Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) and tai chi/qigong (TCQ) programs are common; however, COVID-19 caused most research intervention trials and clinical programs to halt completely, or rapidly adapt an online modality. The Mindfulness and Tai Chi for Cancer Health (MATCH) study, a large-scale study that compared MBCR to a structured TCQ program for treating psychological and physical health outcomes for cancer survivors, adapted to an online, Zoom delivered, program at the outset of COVID-19. Objectives: Study objectives were to explore the experiences of MATCH study participants who took the MBCR or TCQ program completely in-person, those who took the program completely online (over zoom), and participants who had to shift from in-person to online delivery midway through their series of TCQ classes. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants following participation in either the MBCR or TCQ program of the MATCH study. Results: We derived four themes from the data: 1) attending to personal needs, 2) functional, interpersonal, and COVID19-related challenges, 3) unique engagement styles based on mode of delivery, and 4) ease of transitioning to remote delivery. We found that thematic outcomes were variable and largely based on individual preference, such as valuing more autonomy online, or appreciating the interpersonal connection of being in-person. Our results further indicated that the process of shifting from in-person to online within a short time-period was a relatively seamless transition that had minimal impact on participant experience. Conclusions: Insights from this study highlight the benefits of digital mind-body therapies for cancer survivors that extend beyond the acute effects of COVID19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".