MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405454815 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2024.12.004

Correlated factors of posttraumatic growth in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4405454815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Xue, Mengxing Wang, Jiayan Wang, Fangping Chen, Lu‐Yang Jin, Xuemei Xian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZhejiang UniversitySir Run Run Shaw Hospital
KeywordsMeta-analysisPosttraumatic growthColorectal cancerMedicineOncologyCancerPsychologyClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesize the factors correlated with posttraumatic growth (PTG) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) and SinoMed were searched for studies that reported data on the correlated factors associated with PTG in patients with CRC from inception to September 3, 2024. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed via the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodology checklist and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) was utilized to indicate effect size. Meta-analysis was conducted in R Studio. Thirty-one eligible studies encompassing 6,400 participants were included in this review. Correlated factors were identified to be significantly associated with PTG in patients with CRC including demographic factors: residential area ( r = 0.13), marital status ( r = 0.10), employment status ( r = 0.18), education level ( r = 0.19), income level ( r = 0.16); disease-related factors: time since surgery ( r = 0.17), stoma-related complications ( r = 0.14), health-promoting behavior ( r = 0.46), and sexual function ( r = 0.17); psychosocial factors: confrontation coping ( r = 0.68), avoidance coping ( r = −0.65), deliberate rumination ( r = 0.56), social support ( r = 0.47), family function ( r = 0.50), resilience ( r = 0.53), self-efficacy ( r = 0.91), self-compassion ( r = −0.32), psychosocial adjustment ( r = 0.39), gratitude ( r = 0.45), stigma ( r = −0.65), self-perceived burden ( r = −0.31), fear of cancer recurrence ( r = −0.45); and quality of life ( r = 0.32). This meta-analysis identified 23 factors associated with PTG in CRC patients. Medical workers can combine those relevant factors from the perspective of positive psychology, further explore the occurrence and development mechanism of PTG, and establish targeted interventions to promote PTG.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueInternational Journal of Nursing SciencesSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207