Cited by 68Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer survivorship and careReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Online Couple-Based Meditation Intervention for Patients With Primary or Metastatic Brain Tumors and Their Partners: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Milbury, Kathrin, Weathers, Shiao-Pei, Durrani, Sania, Li, Yisheng, Whisenant, Meagan, Li, Jing, Lim, Bora, Weinberg, Jeffrey S. +3 more·2020·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Objectives Although patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors and their partners are at risk of experiencing high symptom burden, they are often excluded from psychosocial intervention studies. Thus, we sought to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a couple-based meditation (CBM) program targeting symptom and well-being outcomes.Methods Couples completed baseline measures assessing symptom and well-being outcomes and were randomized to the CBM or a usual care control group. Couples in the CBM groups attended four weekly (60 minutes each) therapist-led sessions that were delivered via FaceTime (Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA). The CBM program focused on cultivating mindfulness, compassion, gratitude and purpose, and integrated emotional disclosure exercises. Both groups were reassessed six and 12 weeks after baseline.Results We approached 60 eligible dyads, of which 37 (62%) consented, 35 (95%) were randomized, and 22 (63%) completed all assessments. Couples in the CBM group attended a mean of 3.33 sessions (SD 1.09). For patients, significant group differences in favor of the CBM group were found for cognitive (d = 1.05) and general disease symptoms (d = 0.93), and relationship well-being (d = 0.68) and compassion (d = 0.96). No significant group differences were revealed for partners.Conclusion It seems to be feasible, acceptable, and possibly efficacious to deliver a dyadic intervention via FaceTime to brain tumor couples. Although both patients and partners in the CBM group rated the intervention as beneficial, significant group differences with medium-to-large effect sizes were only found for patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.02.004

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milbury, K., Weathers, S.-P., Durrani, S., Li, Y., Whisenant, M., Li, J., Lim, B., Weinberg, J. S., Kesler, S. R., Cohen, L., & Bruera, E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Milbury, Kathrin
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
59
Issue
6
Pages
1260-1267
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005986074
Cited by
68
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K01 AT007559)
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
brain tumors, brain metastases, dyadic intervention, online intervention, FaceTime, mindfulness, compassion, gratitude, emotional disclosure, relational well-being, symptom burden, feasibility, psychosocial interventions
MeSH terms
Brain Neoplasms, Empathy, Humans, Pilot Projects, Meditation, Mindfulness

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