MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414179814 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.776

The Effect of Cognitive Behavioral Intervention on Cognitive Situation, Quality of Life, Depression, Anxiety and Stress Levels of Menopausal Women: Mixed Method Study

2025· article· en· W4414179814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Atkan, F. Oflaz

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionAnxietyThematic analysisPsychosocialIntervention (counseling)Qualitative propertyWilcoxon signed-rank test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Menopause causes physiological, cognitive, and psychological changes in women and negatively affects women’s quality of life. Objectives This study aimed to examine the effects of cognitive behavioral approach-based intervention on the cognitive situation, quality of life, anxiety, depression, and stress levels experienced by women after menopause with mixed-method research. Methods The research was carried out between March 2022 and August 2023 as a mixed-method research consisting of three phases (quantitative, qualitative, and intervention). Eighty women (experiment=27, control=53) attended in the quantitative phase. Quantitative data were collected before & after intervention by The Sociodemographic Data Form, The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, The Menopause-Specific Quality of Life Scale, and The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale. In the intervention phase, a six-session, cognitive behavioral approach-based nursing intervention was conducted with five groups using online Zoom. Hermeneutic phenomenology design was used in the qualitative phase. Qualitative data were collected online, via Zoom platform, and through three focus group interviews. Qualitative data were evaluated by the Thematic Analysis method. In the analysis of quantitative data, descriptive statistics, Independent Samples Groups t-test, Mann-Whitney U Test, and Wilcoxon Test were used. Results There was no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, age, age of onset of menstruation, and menopause. Post-intervention cognitive scores (Z=-3.936, p=0.001) and psychosocial quality of life scores (Z=-2.771, p=0.006) of women who were in the intervention were higher than their pretest scores. There was no statistically significant difference in the post-intervention mean scores between groups in terms of other variables (p>0.05). The themes were loss, stigma, loneliness, not being understood, aging, loss of health, sexuality, acceptance, self-awareness, and coping ability. Women’s perceptions of menopause changed mostly functionally after the intervention study. Conclusions The research findings showed that Cognitive Behavioral Intervention had some curative effects on women’s cognitive changes and psychosocial changes they experienced during menopause. Nurses working with menopausal women can use Cognitive Behavioral approaches to manage the changes brought about by menopause effectively. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207