A Spirituality Teaching Program for Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy of a Spirituality Teaching Program to treat unipolar major depression. METHOD: A randomized controlled, assessor blinded trial design was used. A total of 84 individuals aged 18 years or older with unipolar major depression of mild to moderate severity were recruited in Calgary, Canada and randomized to two study arms: 1) Spirituality Teaching Program Group (8 week, home-based Spirituality Teaching Program); and 2) Waitlist Control Group (no intervention followed by Spirituality Teaching Program starting at week 9). Outcome measures (depression severity, response rate, remission rate) were assessed at baseline, 8, 16, and 24 weeks using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). RESULTS: The two trial groups were similar in their demographic and disease characteristics at baseline. At the 8-week point, the change in depression severity was significantly different between the two groups (change in HAM-D score: 8.5 for the Spirituality Group and 2.3 for the Waitlist Control Group, p < 0.001). The Spirituality Teaching Program Group had significantly higher response (36% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001) and remission rates (31% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001) than the Waitlist Control Group. The benefits remained throughout the observation period for the Spirituality Teaching Program Group participants with response rates of 56.4% at 16 weeks and 58.9% at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: The Spirituality Program significantly reduced depression severity and increased response and remission rates. This non-drug treatment program should be investigated further as a treatment option for depression.
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 | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".