Guided self-help for generalized anxiety disorder in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of a guided self-help treatment based on cognitive behavioral principles (CBT-GSH) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in older adults. METHODS: Three older adults aged from 66 to 70 and diagnosed with GAD were included in a single-case experimental multiple-baseline protocol. Data were collected using daily self-monitoring, standardized clinician ratings, and self-report questionnaires at pretest, posttest, and 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. Treatment consisted of awareness training, worry interventions, relaxation training, pleasant activities scheduling, and relapse prevention. Participants used a manual presenting weekly readings and at-home practice exercises. They also received weekly supportive phone calls from a therapist. RESULTS: At posttest, participants showed improvement on worries and GAD severity, on psychological process variables targeted by treatment (intolerance of uncertainty, negative problem orientation, cognitive avoidance, and perceived usefulness of worry), and on secondary variables associated with GAD (anxiety, depression, sleep difficulties, cognitive functioning, and disability). These results were generally maintained at 12 months after the end of treatment. Participants had favorable opinions toward the treatment. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that CBT-GSH is both feasible and effective for the treatment of GAD in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".