The Experience of Women With Breast or Gynecological Cancer After Participation in an Online Mindfulness‐Based Cancer Recovery (e‐MBCR) Program: Secondary Outcomes Analysis of a Pilot Mixed Methods Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) are recognized as beneficial in oncology supportive care. While qualitative analyses of mindfulness program experiences exist, this is the first mixed methods study to examine patients' experiences after participating in the online Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (e-MBCR) program. METHODS: The SERENITY study was a pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating the early implementation, and effects of the e-MBCR program for women with breast or gynecological cancer in a French-speaking context. This article reports on secondary outcomes from a mixed methods analysis, exploring psychosocial aspects through questionnaires and participants' experiences through interviews. Sixty-two patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Quantitative assessments were carried out at three timepoints; qualitative interviews only post-intervention. Both datasets were analyzed separately, then merged for interpretation. RESULTS: The intervention group showed a significant reduction in depression compared to the control group, with a medium effect size post-intervention. While other psychological measures did not show significant differences, this exploratory analysis revealed favorable trends, particularly in anxiety, spiritual well-being, and post-traumatic growth. At 3-month follow-up, most scales showed a diminished effect compared to post-intervention. Qualitative interviews revealed four themes: a safe and validating environment, acquiring skills and taking action, enhanced well-being, and exposure to memories of cancer. This last dimension was a source of beneficial inner work for most participants, although it was a deeply challenging experience for four women. CONCLUSION: Participation in the e-MBCR program led to beneficial experiences, notably self-exploration, and enhanced self-efficacy. However, MBIs can also bring up challenging experiences, which are important to acknowledge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04564768.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".