Question 1Bridge et al. (1988) report 183 eligible women and 22 refusals. The remaining 161 consented and were randomised; seven were excluded after staging detected metastases, leaving 154. Fifteen subsequently dropped out, leaving 139 treatment completers: 47 relaxation, 44 relaxation plus imagery and 48 controls. All groups met researchers weekly; controls talked about themselves. (a) Reconcile the flow and identify the post-allocation exclusion. (b) Evaluate the contact control. (c) Bound generalisation and masking claims. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1835041/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: p1170 Patients and method and Results/table I; p1171 Results/tables II-III and Discussion; p1172 Discussion, including Leeds null and measurement limitations. The adjacent fluorescent-light correction is unrelated to this paper. Coverage boundary: Selected historical trial methods, mood outcomes and evaluation only; no cancer survival endpoint, clinical recommendation, relaxation instructions or complete stress section. Subgroup findings are not universal treatment rules. Teacher approval pending.4 indicative marks
Bridge et al. (1988) report 183 eligible women and 22 refusals. The remaining 161 consented and were randomised; seven were excluded after staging detected metastases, leaving 154. Fifteen subsequently dropped out, leaving 139 treatment completers: 47 relaxation, 44 relaxation plus imagery and 48 controls. All groups met researchers weekly; controls talked about themselves. (a) Reconcile the flow and identify the post-allocation exclusion. (b) Evaluate the contact control. (c) Bound generalisation and masking claims. Written source analysis only: no human experiments, diagnostic tasks or clinical advice. Primary reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1835041/ Resource and read sections: Full primary page scans: p1170 Patients and method and Results/table I; p1171 Results/tables II-III and Discussion; p1172 Discussion, including Leeds null and measurement limitations. The adjacent fluorescent-light correction is unrelated to this paper. Coverage boundary: Selected historical trial methods, mood outcomes and evaluation only; no cancer survival endpoint, clinical recommendation, relaxation instructions or complete stress section. Subgroup findings are not universal treatment rules. Teacher approval pending.
Cambridge 2027: Partial conceptual match
Bridge: random allocation and an active contact control: selected primary-source aspects only, not whole section or whole study coverage. Selected historical trial methods, mood outcomes and evaluation only; no cancer survival endpoint, clinical recommendation, relaxation instructions or complete stress section. Subgroup findings are not universal treatment rules. Teacher approval pending.
- 9990: Specialist Option 3: Health Psychology / 3.4.3: Stress interventions
- 9990: Health Psychology / References for key studies / Bridge et al. (1988): Required key study: Bridge et al. (1988)
AI-assisted placement. Independent teacher approval pending.
Show indicative guidance
Worked guidance
- Twenty-two refusals leave 161 consenting women who were randomised before seven were excluded after staging detected metastases. This leaves 154 retained, then 139 treatment completers after 15 losses, matching 47 + 44 + 48. The dropouts were five from relaxation plus imagery, six from relaxation and four from control. The final group sizes should not be described as the original allocation sizes. Post-allocation exclusions can affect the balance randomisation sought to create; the seven excluded women's allocation breakdown is not established here. Treatment completion also does not establish complete questionnaires for every endpoint.
- Controls received weekly individual contact and an opportunity to talk, making the comparison stronger than simply leaving them without researcher attention. This helps examine whether the structured packages add something beyond contact. Nevertheless, the activities and expected benefits were different. Participants knew what they were asked to do, so the contact control does not prove that expectancy or reporting effects were identical across groups.
- The paper describes consecutive English-speaking outpatients under 70 receiving radiotherapy for early breast cancer at one hospital. Random-number allocation concerns group assignment within that eligible sample, not random sampling of all patients. The six-week course and completer results cannot guarantee effects for metastatic disease, different treatments or long-term outcomes. This is historical written evaluation, not a relaxation programme or a proposal to conduct research with patients.
Self-marking points
View marking points
- Reconcile 183 - 22 = 161 randomised, followed by seven post-allocation exclusions, 154 retained and 139 treatment completers after 15 dropouts.
- Distinguish treatment-completion counts from original allocation and outcome-analysis counts.
- Explain what weekly researcher contact controls and leaves uncontrolled.
- Identify the early-cancer radiotherapy sample and limits of participant masking.
Examiner tip
Identify the actual sample, endpoint, denominator and source section. Distinguish a result from an interpretation and a group average from an individual claim.