It is Time to Address Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Family Caregivers: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Randomized Pilot Study of the Family Caregiver Version of the Fear of Recurrence Therapy (FC‐FORT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common, persistent, and associated with lower quality of life, impaired functioning, and psychological distress in family caregivers (FC) of individuals with a cancer diagnosis. Interventions are needed to specifically target FCR in FC. This study aimed to pilot test the adapted Family Caregiver-Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT) to establish its feasibility, acceptability, and clinical significance. METHODS: This pilot study used a mixed-method, parallel, two-group randomized control trial (FC-FORT vs. waitlist control group) design. Women FC were recruited through Canadian hospitals, community partners, and social media. FC in the intervention group completed 7 weekly sessions of virtual group therapy (FC-FORT) and an exit interview. All participants completed questionnaires at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Feasibility (e.g., recruitment, allocation, fidelity), acceptability (e.g., dropout, completion, satisfaction) and clinical significance of secondary outcomes were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, mixed ANOVAs, and conventional content analyses were used. RESULTS: 5 sessions (33% dropout). Questionnaire completion rate was 92%. FC satisfaction was 80%. Analyses did not reveal any significant differences on the secondary outcomes between groups. Qualitative analyses revealed high importance, helpfulness, satisfaction, and group cohesion. Suggestions were made by FC for improvements. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first interventions to address FCR in FC. While acceptability of FC-FORT was good, important feasibility issues need to be addressed before moving forward with a larger randomized control trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT, NCT05441384. Registered July 1st, 2022, https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05441384.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".