MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409867827 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaf142.033

OA33 A randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of remote psychosocial and exercise interventions for people with lupus: the ADAPT feasibility trial

2025· article· en· W4409867827 sur OpenAlexaff
Melanie Sloan, David D’Cruz, Thomas Pollak, Wendy Diment, Michael Bosley, Elliott Lever, Farhana Mann, Stephen Morris, James Brimicombe, Felix Naughton

Notice bibliographique

RevueLara D. Veeken · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDiabetes Management and Research
Établissements canadiensSt. Thomas Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychosocialPsychological interventionPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapistPsychiatryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Limited support is available to help people adapt to living with lupus despite the highly reduced quality of life, and almost 50% of lupus patients having experienced suicidal thoughts. Reducing the high burden of symptoms through psychosocial and exercise interventions could lead to significant savings in healthcare costs, in addition to being life-improving for patients. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, feasibility and indications of effectiveness of psychosocial and exercise interventions to inform a large-scale definitive trial. Methods This study was a pre-registered randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN:72406488). Participants were SLE patients (N = 124). Participants were randomised to either a control arm or one of three interventions delivered remotely over 8-12 weeks: 1) The Wren project (providing listening support), 2) Pilates classes, and 3) supportive and educational texts/videos. Feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness measures were collected through online surveys (at Baseline, 12 and 26 weeks) and qualitative interviews. Validated instruments included: depression (PHQ-8), fatigue (FACIT-F), resilience (CD-RISC) and our co-designed “ADAPT” measure. Progression criteria to a definitive trial were pre-defined. Hedge’s g and linear regression were used to estimate within and between-arm differences in effectiveness measures. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Participants were mostly female (97%) and white (82%). We found high levels of feasibility for all interventions. Pre-defined acceptability criteria of > 75% rating the intervention as acceptable/highly acceptable were met for all interventions. The Pilates intervention had the highest proportion of withdrawals/non-attendance (primarily due to ill health). Satisfaction with Pilates was reported for both physical and mental health: “It was the first time I had the opportunity to engage with others with lupus which made me feel less alone. My body and mind feel stronger, and I have a higher sense of self-worth for taking part” (Ppt 001, 40’s), and The Wren participants particularly valued having a “safe space” to talk. Although the text/video programme was acceptable, feasible, and low cost to deliver, 41% of participants stated that they would rather have received a different intervention. Several areas of improvement for the text/video programme were suggested. This included greater tailoring, particularly to stage of disease journey as what was considered acceptable and helpful to a newly diagnosed participant was often viewed as patronising to more experienced patients. Estimates of effectiveness favoured the interventions compared to control, and there was evidence of improved resilience and depression (all interventions), and fatigue (Pilates). Conclusion All interventions were assessed as feasible and acceptable to progress to a large-scale definitive trial, although the text/video intervention requires improvements. A complex multi-stage intervention is required as individual interventions are unlikely to have a positive effect on all of the diverse areas requiring support for people with lupus and other rheumatological diseases. Disclosure M. Sloan: None. D. D’Cruz: Corporate appointments; Leadership position on the APS charity board. Consultancies; Consultancy/speaker fees from GSK, Eli Lilly, Vifor and UCB. T.A. Pollak: None. W. Diment: None. M. Bosley: None. E. Lever: None. F. Mann: None. B. Sloan: None. S. Morris: None. J. Brimicombe: None. F. Naughton: None.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,079

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,393
Écart entre enseignants0,317 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLara D. VeekenMême sujetDiabetes Management and ResearchTravaux en français237 207