A Randomized Trial of Two Forms of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for an Older Adult Population with Subclinical Health Anxiety
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".