CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 341Cancer survivorship and careWomen's cancer prevention and managementBRCA gene mutations in cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Group support interventions for women with breast cancer: Who benefits from what?

Open access
Helgeson, Vicki S., Cohen, Sheldon, Schulz, Richard, Yasko, Joyce·2000·Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0278-6133.19.2.107
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research on the benefits of social support groups has been inconclusive. One reason is that individual differences in intervention responses have rarely been examined. The authors determined the extent to which individual difference variables moderated the effects of an information-based educational group and an emotion-focused peer discussion group on the mental and physical functioning of women with breast cancer (n = 230). The authors administered the SF-36 (S.E. Ware, K.K. Snow, M. Kosinski, & B. Gandek, 1993), a multidimensional quality of life instrument, pre- and postintervention. Educational groups showed greater benefits on the physical functioning of women who started the study with more difficulties compared with less difficulties (e.g., lacked support or fewer personal resources). Peer discussion groups were helpful for women who lacked support from their partners or physicians but harmful for women who had high levels of support. Implications of these results for clinical interventions are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.19.2.107

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.80 · DOI
  2. Schag, 1988, CARES: Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 341

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Helgeson, V. S., Cohen, S., Schulz, R., & Yasko, J.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
ORCID
Venue
Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2000
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
107-114
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
DOI
10.1037/0278-6133.19.2.107
OpenAlex
W2118857534
Cited by
341
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 21
FWCI
6.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository
Funders
National Institutes of Health (5r01ca061303-08)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Keywords
breast cancer, support groups, group intervention, individual differences, intervention moderators, educational groups, peer discussion groups, quality of life, physical function, mental health, partner support, physician support, personal resources
MeSH terms
Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Depression, Female, Humans, Mental Health, Random Allocation, Self-Help Groups, Social Support, 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