The effectiveness of group counseling with an existential approach on pain control, emotional regulation and social adaptation among patients with malignant gastrointestinal cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to determine the effectiveness of group counseling with an existential approach on pain control, emotional regulation and social adaptation of patients with malignant gastrointestinal cancers. The design of the research was semi-experimental and pre-test, post-test and two-month follow-up with a control group. The research population included all patients with malignant gastrointestinal cancer referred to Omid Hospital and Reza Specialized Oncology Center in Mashhad in the summer of 2021 whom 30 patients were randomly selected in two experimental groups (15 people) and control. (15 people) were placed. McGill's pain research tool was Gross Emotional Regulation and Social Adaptation (SAS), which was implemented on subjects in order to collect information in three stages: pre-test, post-test and follow-up. In order to analyze the data, the variance analysis test with repeated measurements was used. The findings indicated that group counseling with an existential approach has an effect on pain control, emotional regulation and social adaptation of patients with gastrointestinal malignant cancers (p>0.05); It should be mentioned, the durability of the treatment effect was maintained after three months (p>0.05). Based on the findings of this research, it can be concluded that group counseling with an existential approach can be used in the field of pain control, emotional regulation and social adaptation of patients with malignant gastrointestinal cancers
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".