Cited by 76Cancer survivorship and carePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

RCT of a psychological intervention for patients with cancer: I. Mechanisms of change.

Open access
Andersen, Barbara L., Shelby, Rebecca A., Golden-Kreutz, Deanna M.·2007·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Little is known about the therapeutic processes contributing to efficacy of psychological interventions for patients with cancer. Data from a randomized clinical trial yielding robust biobehavioral and health effects (B. L. Andersen et al., 2004, 2007) were used to examine associations between process variables, treatment utilization, and outcomes. Novel findings emerged. Patients were highly satisfied with the treatment, but their higher levels of felt support (group cohesion) covaried with lower distress and fewer symptoms. Also, specific treatment strategies were associated with specific outcomes, including lower distress, improved dietary habits, reduced symptomatology, and higher chemotherapy dose intensity. These data provide a comprehensive test of multiple therapeutic processes and mechanisms for biobehavioral change with an intervention including both intensive and maintenance phases.

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 · 10.1037/0022-006x.75.6.927

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Several specific cognitive behavioral strategies (e.g., relaxation) increased over time and may be correlated with and underlie clinical improvements.

    “Several specific cognitive behavioral strategies (e.g., relaxation) increased over time and may be correlated with and underlie clinical improvements [37].”

    From Novel patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used in a pilot and feasibility study of a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) group intervention for patients with chronic hepatitis C (2018) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results (page unavailable) associate use of several strategies, including relaxation, with reductions in symptoms and signs; the Discussion says relaxation practice likely contributed to reduced distress. However, the paper does not establish that use of several strategies increased over time: it assumes no technique use at baseline and examines use during the intervention. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cytel Software Corp . StatXact: Statistical software for exact non-parametric inference [Computer software and manual] Author; Cambridge, MA: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jakubowski P, Lange A. The assertive option. Research Press; Champaign, IL: 1978. [Google Scholar]
  3. Karoly P, Anderson CW. The long and short of psychological change: Toward a goal-centered understanding of treatment durability and adaptive success. In: Snyder CR, Ingram RE, editors. Handbook of psychological changes: Psychotherapy processes & practices for the 21st century. Wiley; New York: 2000. pp. 154–176. [Google Scholar]
  4. McNair PM, Lorr M, Droppleman L. POMS manual. Education and Industrial Testing Services; San Diego, CA: 1971. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andersen, B. L., Shelby, R. A., & Golden-Kreutz, D. M.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2007
Volume
75
Issue
6
Pages
927-938
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2034656913
Cited by
76
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 15
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Cancer Society (PBR-89)
  • Longaberger Company--American Cancer Society (PBR-89A)
  • US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (DAMD17-94-J-4165; DAMD17-96-1-6294; DAMD17-97-1-7062)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (RO1MH51487)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA92704; K05 CA098133)
  • Ohio State University (P30 CA16058)
  • Walther Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
psychological intervention, cancer patients, mechanisms of change, therapeutic process, treatment satisfaction, group cohesion, distress, symptom management, dietary habits, chemotherapy dose intensity, maintenance phase
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome

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