Cited by 178Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy reduces chronic cancer‐related fatigue: a treatment study

van der Lee, Marije L., Garssen, Bert·2012·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Introduction: About one‐third of cancer survivors suffer from severe chronic fatigue. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness‐based cognitive group therapy in reducing severe chronic fatigue in cancer survivors with mixed diagnoses. Patients and Methods: Participants (n = 100) were randomly selected from a cohort and allocated to an intervention and a waiting list condition. Analyses were based on 59 participants in the intervention condition and 24 in the waiting‐list condition. Fatigue severity (Checklist Individual Strength), functional impairment (Sickness Impact Profile) and well being (Health and Disease‐Inventory) were assessed before and after the 9‐week intervention. The intervention group had a follow‐up 6 months following the intervention. Results: At post‐treatment measurement the proportion of clinically improved participants was 30%, versus 4% in the waiting list condition (χ2 (1) = 6.71; p = 0.007). The mean fatigue score at post‐measurement was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the waiting list group corrected for pre‐treatment level of fatigue. The mean well‐being score at post‐measurement was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the waiting list group corrected for pre‐treatment level of well‐being. The treatment effect was maintained at 6‐month follow‐up. No difference between the two conditions was found in functional impairment. Discussion: Mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy is an effective treatment for chronic cancer‐related fatigue. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.1890

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Lee, M. L., & Garssen, B.
Affiliations
Helen Dowling Instituut (NL)
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-19
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
264-272
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2129254412
Cited by
178
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, chronic fatigue, cancer survivors, cancer-related fatigue, group therapy, functional disability, well-being, treatment efficacy, maintenance of treatment effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Fatigue, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Psychotherapy, Group, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Survivors, Sickness Impact Profile

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review