Palliative & supportive care · 2026
Preliminary examination of the validity of a behavioral mindfulness measure in adults with advanced cancer and their family caregivers.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Noonan Megan F, Mosher Catherine E, Secinti Ekin, Lewson Ashley B, Johns Shelley A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The breath counting task (BCT) has shown evidence of validity as a behavioral measure of mindfulness in healthy populations but remains largely untested in clinical contexts. The BCT is a computerized measure of present-moment awareness based on breath-counting accuracy. This study provides a preliminary evaluation of its validity in adults with advanced cancer and their family caregivers.
METHODS: Fifty-five patient-caregiver dyads were randomized to a 6-week mindfulness intervention or usual care. Participants completed the BCT and self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, and 1-month follow-up. The BCT's construct validity was examined through: (1) sensitivity to mindfulness intervention using linear mixed models, (2) convergent validity via correlations with self-reported mindfulness and theoretically related constructs (e.g., inner peace), and (3) criterion validity via correlations with clinical outcomes (e.g., quality of life).
RESULTS: Findings differed for patients and caregivers. Among caregivers, the BCT demonstrated sensitivity to intervention; breath-counting accuracy on the BCT increased over time in the mindfulness condition and remained stable in the usual care condition. Among patients in the mindfulness condition, greater breath-counting accuracy was moderately associated with better quality of life at follow-ups, including a significant correlation at 1 month (r = .57, p < .05), supporting its criterion validity. Evidence of convergent validity was limited. However, for patients and caregivers, greater breath-counting accuracy was moderately associated with higher self-reported mindfulness facets following intervention.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Preliminary findings suggest the BCT may capture certain attentional aspects of mindfulness in patients with advanced cancer and caregivers; however, patterns varied across groups, highlighting the need for further evaluation of its validity in clinical contexts.
METHODS: Fifty-five patient-caregiver dyads were randomized to a 6-week mindfulness intervention or usual care. Participants completed the BCT and self-report surveys at baseline, post-intervention, and 1-month follow-up. The BCT's construct validity was examined through: (1) sensitivity to mindfulness intervention using linear mixed models, (2) convergent validity via correlations with self-reported mindfulness and theoretically related constructs (e.g., inner peace), and (3) criterion validity via correlations with clinical outcomes (e.g., quality of life).
RESULTS: Findings differed for patients and caregivers. Among caregivers, the BCT demonstrated sensitivity to intervention; breath-counting accuracy on the BCT increased over time in the mindfulness condition and remained stable in the usual care condition. Among patients in the mindfulness condition, greater breath-counting accuracy was moderately associated with better quality of life at follow-ups, including a significant correlation at 1 month (r = .57, p < .05), supporting its criterion validity. Evidence of convergent validity was limited. However, for patients and caregivers, greater breath-counting accuracy was moderately associated with higher self-reported mindfulness facets following intervention.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Preliminary findings suggest the BCT may capture certain attentional aspects of mindfulness in patients with advanced cancer and caregivers; however, patterns varied across groups, highlighting the need for further evaluation of its validity in clinical contexts.