MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402739763 · doi:10.2196/58014

Delivering a Group-Based Quality of Life Intervention to Young Adult Cancer Survivors via a Web Platform: Feasibility Trial

2024· article· en· W4402739763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rina S. Fox, Tara K. Torres, Terry A. Badger, Emmanuel Katsanis, Dershung Yang, Stacy D. Sanford, David Victorson, Betina R. Yanez, Frank J. Penedo, Michael H. Antoni, Laura B. Oswald

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsPreprintIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)UsabilityPeer supportMedicinePsychologyGerontologyNursingWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Young adult (YA) cancer survivors aged 18-39 frequently report unmet health information and peer support needs, as well as poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Our team has developed a supportive care intervention, titled TOGETHER-YA, to improve YA cancer survivors' stress management skills. TOGETHER-YA is delivered via videoconference and has shown initial feasibility, acceptability, and promise for improving HRQOL among YA survivors. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this two-part study was to design and test a website to host the TOGETHER-YA intervention for YA cancer survivors aged 18-39. TOGETHER-YA is a 10-week, group-based program designed to promote health-related quality of life. METHODS: In Part 1, we leveraged an existing online platform and adapted it to meet the needs of TOGETHER-YA. We conducted three iterative waves of usability testing with three YAs per wave to refine the website. In Part 2, we conducted a single-group feasibility trial of TOGETHER-YA using the website. Primary outcomes were feasibility (i.e., recruitment, retention, attendance) and acceptability (i.e., satisfaction). RESULTS: Usability testing participants (N=9) indicated that the TOGETHER-YA website was easy to use (M=5.9, SD=1.3) and easy to learn (M=6.5, SD=0.9) (possible ranges: 1-7). Qualitative feedback identified needed revisions to the aesthetics (e.g., images), content (e.g., session titles), function (e.g., clarity of functionality), and structure (e.g., expandable sections), which were implemented. In the feasibility trial, participants (N=7) were an average of 25 years old (SD=4.7) and mostly non-Hispanic White (57%). Recruitment (70%) and retention (71%) rates and average session attendance (M=7.1, SD=4.2) supported feasibility. Participant agreement with positive statements about TOGETHER-YA and average satisfaction ratings (M=5.06, SD=1.64; possible range: 1-7) demonstrated acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Results supported the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the TOGETHER-YA program and website. By hosting the content online, the program effectively addresses YAs' expressed preference for convenience. Future studies are needed to increase TOGETHER-YA's efficiency and explore its efficacy for improving targeted outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL: NCT05597228, October 24, 2022.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207