MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413362754 · doi:10.1002/pon.70259

A Hybrid Effectiveness‐Implementation Study of the Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully Psychosocial Intervention Across Established Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care Programs in Alberta's Calgary and South Zone

2025· article· en· W4413362754 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janet de Groot, Andrea Feldstain, Carly Sears, Kelly de Cássia Peixoto de Oliveira Silveira, Laura E. Labelle, Sarah Hales, Chun Hao, Geoffrey Liu, Kathleen C. Sitter, Hillary Roth, Fay J. Strohschein

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreAlberta Conservation AssociationUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsPsychosocialReferralMedicinePsychological interventionPalliative careCompetence (human resources)DistressNursingHotlinePsychosocial supportFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background The brief evidence‐based Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) psychotherapy effectively addresses common psychosocial concerns among people with advanced non‐curative cancers across cultures. Implementation strategies are required to speed uptake of psychotherapies, such as CALM, to address clinical needs. Aims The study aimed to develop and compare implementation referral strategies for CALM, assess the feasibility of training clinicians for CALM competence and assess patient adherence and satisfaction with CALM. Patient‐reported outcomes were included to confirm effectiveness. Methods A pragmatic single‐arm Hybrid Type 3 effectiveness‐implementation study with concurrent, mixed‐methods design was used to evaluate implementation outcomes of referral strategies, while collecting clinical effectiveness data for CALM. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework informed interviews to obtain clinician and community cancer care organization leaders' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to CALM referrals. Results Clinicians resonated with the CALM model, conveyed receptivity to change for beneficial interventions and valued a CALM coordinator in facilitating referrals with clinician and patient information. Patients referred to CALM through the psychosocial oncology (PSO) programme, after distress screening, had higher attrition ( X 2 = 6.3, p = 0.01) than patients directly referred by frontline clinicians. Training multidisciplinary clinicians to CALM competence was limited by attrition. Conclusion CALM implementation was feasible with new direct referral pathways by frontline oncology clinicians across established PSO and palliative care programs. A CALM study coordinator facilitated referrals, and provided information material, Training early career clinicians may support integration of CALM into clinical practice and support clinical needs of patients with advanced 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207