Managing cancer and living meaningfully (CALM): Implementation in Dutch cancer care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) is a brief, evidence-based psychotherapy tailored for patients with advanced cancer that has not yet been implemented routinely in Dutch cancer care. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, sustainability and effectiveness of CALM in different clinical settings in the Netherlands. METHODS: In 2019 and 2020 a multi-center, intervention-only study was performed in three Dutch cancer care settings. Professionals were trained to provide CALM under supervision. Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer were included and filled out questionnaires to measure depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), death anxiety (Death and Dying Distress Scale), and anxiety (hospital anxiety and depression scale-anxiety) at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The Clinical Evaluation Questionnaire was used to assess acceptability of CALM at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (55% of the eligible patients) were included in the study and 85% of the included patients received 3 or more CALM sessions. Of the 24 trained therapists, 15 (63%) started providing CALM. Two years post-study, CALM was provided in each center by a total of 19 therapists. On average, patients perceived CALM to be at least somewhat helpful. A significant decrease in severity of depression (p = 0.006), death anxiety (p = 0.008), and anxiety (p = 0.024) was observed over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that CALM therapy is feasible, acceptable, and sustainable in three Dutch cancer care settings, although not all predefined feasibility criteria for therapists were met. CALM can be effective in decreasing feelings of depression, anxiety, and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".