The effectiveness of group compassion-focused therapy on difficulty in emotion regulation, pain severity and quality of life among women with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Breast cancer is the most prevalent and fatal cancer among women. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of group compassion-focused therapy (CFT) on difficulty in emotion regulation, pain, and quality of life in women with breast cancer.Method The participants were 44 women with breast cancer who had been referred to Yaserbi and Beheshti Hospital in Kashan (Isfahan). After obtaining informed consent, these women were randomly divided into two intervention (n = 22) and control (n = 22) groups, and they were asked to complete the Difficulty in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), the Revised McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2) and Quality of Life questionnaire for cancer patients (QLQ-C30) before treatment, after treatment, and at two-month follow-up.Results Data analysis using repeated measure ANOVA showed that CFT significantly improves difficulty in emotion regulation, pain intensity, and quality of life of women with breast cancer.Discussion The findings suggest that CFT can be an effective approach to reducing psychological symptoms in women with breast cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 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".