Mindfulness and Tai Chi for Cancer Health (MATCH) Study: Primary Outcomes of a Preference-Based Multisite Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many cancer survivors have high levels of distress and psychosocial symptoms. Two mind-body interventions for treating these problems are Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) and Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ). However, while both interventions show efficacy compared with usual care, they have never been studied together. This trial was the first, to our knowledge, to incorporate innovative design features including patient choice while evaluating two interventions to treat distressed cancer survivors. METHODS: A preference-based multisite randomized comparative effectiveness trial design with broad pragmatic inclusion criteria was used. Participants with a preference for either MBCR or TCQ received their preferred intervention, while those without a preference were randomly assigned 1:1 into either intervention. Furthermore, participants were all randomly assigned 2:1 into immediate intervention or waitlist control. Total mood disturbance (TMD) on the Profile of Mood States after intervention was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-seven participants provided baseline data, 75% were female, with an average age of 60.7 years. Of 12 cancer types, the most prevalent were breast (40.7%), prostate (11.2%), and GI (9.7%) cancers. Most had stage 0-II (50.1%) diagnoses, with 17% having more advanced disease. Approximately two thirds had a preference, with 57% of those choosing TCQ and 43% choosing MBCR. The remaining 36% were equally randomly assigned. Choosing a specific program or choosing to be randomly assigned had no significant effect on outcomes. Both the combined random assignment and preference MBCR and TCQ groups improved more than their respective waitlists on TMD scores with small to medium effects. The largest improvements occurred for MBCR on subscales of tension, anger, and vigor and in TCQ on anger, depression, and vigor. CONCLUSION: This large, pragmatic trial demonstrated both mindfulness and TCQ interventions improved mood in distressed cancer survivors, whether they chose a program or chose to be randomly assigned.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".