Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy on Mental Pain, Distress Tolerance and Psychological Hardiness in Breast Cancer Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of mindfulness therapy on mental pain, distress tolerance and psychological hardiness in breast cancer patients. The method of this study was quasi-experimental with pretest-posttest design and a one-month follow-up with control group. The statistical population consisted of all female patients referred to the medical clinics of Babol in 2022 who received definite diagnosis of breast cancer. Among these, 30 patients with breast cancer were selected by non-random sampling method and were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (mindfulness therapy) and control group (15 patients in each group). Mindfulness therapy was performed in 8 sessions of 90 minutes in the experimental group. Data were collected using Psychological Hardiness Questionnaire (2003), Distress Tolerance Scale (2005) and Mental Pain Inventory (2003). Data were analyzed using SPSS-22 software and repeated measure analysis of variance. The results showed that mindfulness therapy is effective on mental pain, distress tolerance and psychological hardiness in patients with breast cancer. It can be concluded that mindfulness therapy is effective on subjective pain, distress tolerance and psychological hardiness in patients with breast cancer and can be used to reduce the adverse effects of the disease on patients' lives and to take supportive measures
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it