A multidisciplinary group-based survivorship intervention for those living with multiple myeloma: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While multiple myeloma continues to be an incurable cancer, advances in its understanding and management have led to significantly improved survival rates. Survivorship interventions for those living with multiple myeloma remain scarce, despite mounting evidence for multiple unmet support needs among multiple myeloma survivors. The current study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a novel multidisciplinary group-based multiple myeloma survivorship intervention. METHODS: A mixed-method, repeated measures feasibility study was conducted within a routine cancer support service. Seven participants, aged over 18, who had a multiple myeloma diagnosis and were clinically assessed as suitable for the intervention by their haemato-oncologist, attended online for six weekly group sessions of physical exercise and self-management input, completing qualitative, physical and self-report measures at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up. RESULTS: The intervention was deemed overall feasible, with relatively high uptake, participants describing it as largely acceptable and appropriate and providing recommendations for feasibility-enhancing intervention refinements. Findings regarding the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention were mixed. While qualitative analyses stressed the benefits of the intervention (e.g. peer support, connectedness, improved well-being) and large effect sizes were observed for most physical outcomes, no improvements in self-reported outcomes (i.e. quality of life, fatigue) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first investigation of a promising novel survivorship intervention for those living with multiple myeloma, highlighting the importance of peer support in particular, on which future clinical trials, aiming to establish the intervention's effectiveness for routine care, will be able to build.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".