Cited by 82Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

Telephone-based coping skills training for patients awaiting lung transplantation

Blumenthal, James A., Babyak, Michael A., Carney, Robert M., Keefe, Francis J., Davis, R. Duane, LaCaille, Rick A., Parekh, Priti I., Freedland, Kenneth E. +2 more·2006·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Impaired quality of life is associated with increased mortality in patients with advanced lung disease. Using a randomized controlled trial with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment at 2 tertiary care teaching hospitals, the authors randomly assigned 328 patients with end-stage lung disease awaiting lung transplantation to 12 weeks of telephone-based coping skills training (CST) or to usual medical care (UMC). Patients completed a battery of quality of life instruments and were followed for up to 3.4 years to assess all-cause mortality. Compared with UMC, CST produced lower scores on perceived stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and negative affect and improved scores on mental health functioning, optimism, vitality, and perceived social support. There were 29 deaths (9%) over a mean follow-up period of 1.1 year. Survival analyses revealed that there was no difference in survival between the 2 groups. The authors conclude that a telephone-based CST intervention can be effectively delivered to patients awaiting lung transplantation. Despite the severity of pulmonary disease in this patient population, significant improvements in quality of life, but not somatic measures or survival to transplant, were achieved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.74.3.535

Cites

59 of 59 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blumenthal, J. A., Babyak, M. A., Carney, R. M., Keefe, F. J., Davis, R. D., LaCaille, R. A., Parekh, P. I., Freedland, K. E., Trulock, E., & Palmer, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2006-06
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
535-544
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2089460090
Cited by
82
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (HL 065503)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
lung transplantation, end-stage lung disease, quality of life, perceived stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, negative affect, mental health, optimism, vitality, perceived social support, all-cause mortality, psychological intervention
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Depression, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status, Humans, Lung Diseases, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Survival, Teaching, Telephone, Waiting Lists, Lung Transplantation

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