MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402416461 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31090395

Biopsychosocial Associates of Psychological Distress and Post-Traumatic Growth among Canadian Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2024· article· en· W4402416461 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Karen M. Zhang, Som D. Mukherjee, Gregory R. Pond, Michelle I. Roque, Ralph M. Meyer, Jonathan Sussman, Denise Bryant‐Lukosius

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelMedicinePandemicPsychological distressCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DistressPsychiatryCancer2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Clinical psychologyAnxietyVirologyPathologyInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Understanding both the positive and negative psychological outcomes among cancer patients during the pandemic is critical for planning post-pandemic cancer care. This study (1) examined levels of psychological distress and post-traumatic growth (PTG) among Canadian cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) explored variables that were associated with psychological distress and PTG during the pandemic using a biopsychosocial framework. METHOD: A cross-section survey was undertaken of patients receiving ongoing care at a regional cancer centre in Ontario, Canada, between February and December 2021. Self-reported questionnaires assessing sociodemographic information, social difficulties, psychological distress (depression, anxiety fear of recurrence, and emotional distress), PTG, illness perceptions, and behavioural responses to the pandemic were administered. Disease-related information was extracted from patient health records. RESULTS: = 104), respectively. Approximately 43% of the sample reported experiencing high PTG, and these positive experiences were not associated with levels of distress. Social factors, including social difficulties, being female, lower education, and unemployment status were prominent associative factors of patient distress. Perceptions of the pandemic as threatening, adopting more health safety behaviours, and not being on active treatment also increased patient likelihood to experience severe psychological distress. Younger age and adopting more health safety behaviours increased the likelihood of experiencing high PTG. The discriminatory power of the predictive models was strong, with a C-statistic > 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Examining both the positive and negative psychological patient outcomes during the pandemic has highlighted the complex range of coping responses. Interventions that adopt a multi-pronged approach to screen and address social distress, as well as to leverage health safety behaviours, may improve the adjustments in the pandemic aftermath.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→