Acceptability, feasibility and preliminary effects of an online group psychotherapy intervention for adolescents and young adults with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; ages 15-29 years) diagnosed with cancer are increasingly recognized as an oncology population with distinct psychosocial needs. However, few specialized psychosocial interventions for AYAs currently exist. This study reports on the development of a novel group-based psychotherapy intervention to address the psychosocial needs of AYAs. The objective was to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effects of the intervention. METHODS: = 20.97 years, SD = 3.68, range = 15-29 years, 76% women) were conducted. Recruitment and retention data assessed intervention feasibility. Patient-reported psychosocial outcomes were measured at baseline and immediately following the intervention to assess preliminary effects. Acceptability was assessed following the intervention using a self-report measure of participant satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, the completion rate of the intervention was 85% (n = 28). All participants "strongly agreed" (88%) or "agreed" (13%) that they were satisfied with the group. Meeting, sharing experiences, and expressing feelings with other AYAs were identified as the most helpful aspects. Participants reported significant improvements in emotional (p < 0.05) and functional (p < 0.01) quality of life from baseline to immediately post-intervention with medium effect sizes (d = 0.58-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the intervention is feasible, acceptable, and shows promise for improving psychosocial outcomes for AYAs. Further research will refine the intervention and establish efficacy in a randomized trial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".