A Randomized Trial of Two Forms of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for an Older Adult Population with Subclinical Health Anxiety
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seniors have been consistently under-represented in the health anxiety treatment literature. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of a six-session enhanced cognitive behaviour therapy (ECBT) programme for subclinical health anxiety in seniors, and to examine whether the programme fostered therapeutic alliance and motivation for psychotherapy as compared to a standard cognitive behavioural therapy (SCBT) programme and wait-list control (WLC). Fifty-seven seniors with subclinical health anxiety were randomly assigned to six weeks of SCBT, ECBT, or WLC. At pre-treatment, post-treatment, and three-month follow-up, participants completed questionnaires on health anxiety and its dimensions, and other related psychological constructs. Therapeutic alliance and motivation measures were completed after Sessions 1, 3, and 6. At post-treatment, participants in the SCBT and ECBT groups showed significantly lower health anxiety when compared to WLC, with reductions on the subscale measuring disease fear/phobia. Significantly, more participants in the SCBT (66.7%) and ECBT (55.6%) conditions demonstrated clinically significant change on health anxiety compared to the WLC condition (11%). Gains were maintained at three months. There were minimal differences found between the SCBT and ECBT groups on therapeutic alliance and motivation. The findings indicated that both forms of CBT were efficacious for reducing some of the health anxious thoughts and beliefs in seniors.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it