Cited by 18Cancer survivorship and careTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCOVID-19 and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 18 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Cancer during a pandemic: A psychosocial telehealth intervention for young adults

Open access

Abstract

The SARS-II COVID-19 pandemic has posed pronounced global health threats and prompted assorted transformations in societal engagement and clinical service delivery. For cancer survivors, many of whom are immune-compromised, these pandemic-related health threats pose greater challenges, warranting extra precautions within everyday living. Young adult (YA) cancer survivors already confront many unique physical and emotional challenges specific to their demographic. Already comfortable with assorted technologies, the pandemic presented an opportunity to provide telehealth intervention that targeted social isolation and distress in an effort to facilitate healthy coping. Within this context, we created an 8-week telehealth intervention for YAs (age 18-39) comprised of 60-minute sessions with interventions derived from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy. Participants reported a reduction in anxious preoccupation, helplessness/hopelessness, and psychological inflexibility and provided rich qualitative feedback on their experiences. Findings contribute new insight for an underinvestigated population navigating the dual health threats of cancer and COVID-19, provide practice recommendations with attention to the value of qualitative data capturing in group settings, and underscore participants’ preference for flexible group structure and age-related connections. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2022.100865

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

22 Own result · 11 Own method · 6 Own interpretation · 5 No full text of the sources · 4 Partly supported · 3 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 23 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 21
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
31 of 31
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Data on young adults are sparse, particularly related to these constructs, thereby limiting comparisons.

    “Data on YAs are sparse, particularly related to these constructs, thereby limiting comparisons.”
1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 7.45reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .024

    “F(2, 6)= 7.45, p = .02”

  • Consistentt(6) = 2.7reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .036

    “t(6)= 2.70, p = .04”

  • Consistentt(6) = 3.58reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(6)= 3.58, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 6.09reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(2, 6)= 6.09, p = .04”

  • Consistentt(6) = 2.66reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .038

    “t(6)= 2.66, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 3.94reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .081

    “F(2, 6)= 3.94, p = .08”

  • Consistentt(6) = 2.72reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .035

    “t(6)= 2.72, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 11.66reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(2, 6)= 11.66, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 3.93reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .081

    “F(2, 6)= 3.93, p = .08”

  • Consistentt(6) = 2.76reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .033

    “t(6)= 2.76, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(2, 10) = 2.01reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .185

    “F(2, 10)= 2.01, p = .18”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 3.86reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .084

    “F(2, 6)= 3.86, p = .08”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 4.48reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .065

    “F(2, 6)= 4.48, p = .06”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 1.73reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .255

    “F(2, 6)= 1.73, p = .26”

  • ConsistentF(2, 6) = 0.15reported p = .87 · recomputed p = .864

    “F(2, 6)= 0.15, p = .87”

15 of 15

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lichiello, S., Rainwater, L., Russell, G. B., Pulgar, C., Clark, J., Daniel, S., McCall, M. H., Bentley, P., & Duckworth, K. E.
Affiliations
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
Corresponding author
Duckworth, Katie E.
Venue
Current Problems in Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
100865
ISSN
0147-0272 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4280494242
Cited by
18
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Problems in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA012197)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
young adult cancer survivors, COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth intervention, psychosocial interventions, social isolation, psychological distress, coping, acceptance and commitment therapy, meaning-centered therapy, anxious preoccupation, psychological inflexibility, group therapy, qualitative feedback
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Adolescent, Adult, Humans, Neoplasms, Telemedicine, Young Adult, Pandemics, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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