Relaxation therapy for those with cancer : a grounded theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind-body approaches have been used to target stress and anxiety associated with a diagnosis of cancer.A specific on-going, open, relaxation mind-body group offered through Cancer Care Manitoba in V/innipeg MB experientially taught patients three mind-body approaches; (a) progressive muscle relaxation, (b) guided imagery and visualization and (c) suggestions and affirmations.Ten participants and fow facilitators were interviewed.Interviews focused on three topics; (a) the role the group played in the participants' lives and their cancer experience, (b) what home practice looked like for participants, and (c) how participants were able to apply the approaches to spontaneous situations.The interviews were coded and analyzed according to grounded theory methodology.A theory developed which found that when three conditions were present, participants used the approaches the most frequently and regularly to cope with cancer related situations, as well as every day stressful events.The three conditions were (a) presence of stress and anxiety producing situations, (b) external motivation, and (c) personal motivation.However, participants continued to use modif,red versions of the approaches long after they f,rnished cancer treatment and stopped attending the mindbody group.Those with minimal exposure to the approaches and as well as those who had not attended the group in up to 5 years continued to use the approaches in some fashion.Information from the facilitator interviews was not included in this coding, however did substantiate findings to some degree.state of mind of the person and treated through physical and mental interventions (Lewis& Lewis, 1972).In the second half of the 19th century, the germ theory of disease took precedence in the medical field, placing more emphasis on the discovery of microorganisms that cause disease (Lewis & Lewis, 1972).The emotional aspect of physical ailments took a back seat to the physiological discoveries that were being made in that era.Compartmentalization of the mind and body into many systems allowed for study of the body in minute detail but, at the same time, the individual personality was ignored and thought to be of little influence or consequence in treatment (Loscalzo & Zabon,1996).In recent years, there has been a move to mend this split of the mind and body and view the person in totality, attending to all psychological, social, spiritual, and physical consequences of a diagnosis (Loscalzo &. Zabora, 1996).There is relevant literature relating to the effectiveness of widely used psychosocial interventions for those with cancer.Overall, individuals with cancer have shown improvements in distress and anxiety levels due to psychosocial interventions (Andrykowski & Manne, 2006).There is a growing body of literature focusing on Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, a program based on intensive, daily teaching and practice of body scan meditation, sitting meditation and mindful hatha yoga, discussions of stress and coping and a home practice component (Kabit-Zirn 1985; Kabit-Zinn, Massion, Hebert, & Rosenbaum, 1998).Introducing this program to individuals with cancer has shown positive and long term effects on managing stress (Carlson et al., 200I Carlson, Speca,
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 | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".