Feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of bibliotherapy for patients with cancer: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the number of Canadians diagnosed with cancer continues to grow and treatment effectiveness improves, cancer survival rates increase. An estimated 62% of people are expected to survive for 5 years after their cancer diagnosis (Canadian Cancer Society, 2012). Increasing numbers of Canadians requiring ongoing medical treatment, surveillance and supportive care places a strain on current healthcare resources (Canadian Cancer Society, 2011). Given the limited funds available, and the growing demand for services, there is a strong need for feasible, accessible, cost contained psychosocial interventions for patients with cancer. Bibliotherapy is a psychological self-help intervention that relies primarily on books and has been shown to be efficacious for decreasing distress in many clinical settings. Despite this, very few studies have investigated the efficacy and acceptability of bibliotherapy in patients with cancer. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to examine the acceptability and efficacy of a self-help workbook in enhancing the sense of empowerment and quality of life and reducing distress in patients with cancer. The findings for Study 1 suggest that participants found the workbook helpful and 17 out of 18 of the respondents reported that they would recommend Mastering the Art of Coping in Good Times and Bad (2010) to other patients with cancer. Respondents noted that the most helpful aspects of the book were (a) the skills that focused on thinking more positively, (b) instructions on how to practice mindfulness, and (c) the emphasis on the importance of relationships. The findings from Study 2 indicate that participants in the bibliotherapy group experienced improvements in empowerment, quality of life and distress when compared to the control group. The limitations and areas for future research, as well as the clinical implications of this dissertation are discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".