Cognitive remediation group therapy versus mutual aid group therapy: A pilot randomized, controlled trial to determine the feasibility and acceptability of group therapy for people aging with HIV facing cognitive challenges
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Cognitive impairment is an important comorbidity for people aging with HIV, yet we lack non-medical techniques to address the associated anxiety and stress. Combination psychosocial interventions may have better outcomes than single technique approaches. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and tablet-based Brain Training Activities (BTA) are promising techniques. Using community-based participatory research, our objective was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of group therapy for HIV, aging, and cognition.Methods: A pilot, parallel design, two-arm RCT recruited from a Toronto neurobehavioural research unit. Eligibility criteria included: diagnoses with mild-to-moderate HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND), age ≥ 40 years, HIV-positive for 5+ years, and English fluency. Randomization was 1:1 concealed allocation to Cognitive Remediation Group Therapy (Experimental; combination of BTA and MBSR) or Mutual Aid Group Therapy (Control). Primary outcomes were feasibility, measured by recruitment and completion, and acceptability, determined by a satisfaction questionnaire. The secondary outcome was intervention fidelity, assessed via facilitator session reports. Exploratory outcomes were anxiety, stress, coping, and use of mindfulness and brain training activities. Facilitators and analysts were blinded, however participants were not.Results: From 1 April 2018 to 19 March 2019, forty eligible participants were contacted, 12 randomized, and 10 completed the study and were analyzed for outcomes. The trial met its a priori feasibility targets with 30% recruited and 25% completed. At post-intervention, acceptability was 90% in the novel and 85% in the control arm. Assessors confirmed intervention delivery with satisfactory fidelity, with no missing components or significant deviations. Anxiety decreased for all in the novel arm and half of the control. Stress decreased and coping increased for half in both arms. All participants increased and sustained BTA use and half with mindfulness activities. There were no reported study harms.Conclusions: Although the combination of BTA and MBSR proved equal or slightly better to mutual aid therapy on all outcomes, recruitment of people with a formal HAND diagnosis from a single site was challenging. We recommend that future exploration of these techniques broaden to those aging with HIV with cognitive challenges regardless of a formal HAND diagnosis.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03483740. Registered 30 March 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03483740
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,046 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».