Effectiveness of Mental Health Interventions For Adults with Cancer in the US: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to synthesize existing literature on the effects of mental health interventions for adult cancer patients following their initial diagnosis and to consolidate findings related to interventions addressing mental health conditions in this population. With the growing number of adults diagnosed with cancer, further research and the development of tailored mental health interventions are crucial to improving health outcomes. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Medline Complete, and Health Source Nursing databases between January 2024 and February 2024. To ensure rigor, Toronto and Remington’s (2020) integrative review process was applied. The Johns Hopkins Hierarchy of Evidence Guide and Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Dang et al., 2022) were utilized to evaluate the level and quality of evidence. Additionally, Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt’s (2022) Evaluation Table was used to present the quality appraisal information for each reviewed study. Findings were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method. The review findings suggest that while current data emphasize the importance of mental health interventions for adult cancer patients, continued research is necessary to refine these interventions and tailor them. Proper mental health diagnosis and interventions in this patient population could significantly enhance treatment adherence and overall health outcomes for adult cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".