A mixed methods exploration of family members’/friends’ roles in a self-care intervention for depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this exploratory study were to examine the: (1) family and friend (F/F) support patients reported receiving and F/F reported providing to patients while participating in a self-care intervention (SCI) for depressive symptoms and (2) associations between different types of F/F support and patients' use of the self-care tools in the SCI. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients aged 40 + participating in an uncontrolled feasibility study of an SCI, completed structured telephone interviews about the support they received from F/F while participating in the SCI. Eighteen F/F completed questionnaires on the support they provided to patients during the SCI. Seven F/F participated in a post-study qualitative interview on their involvement in the SCI. RESULTS: About 35% of patients reported receiving F/F support with the SCI. Patients' use of the behavioral tools was positively associated with patients' report of F/F support, and with F/F's report of instrumental support provided. F/F reported uncertainty about the type of support they should offer to patients in the SCI. DISCUSSION: F/F involvement in SCIs for depressive symptoms may be helpful to patients and may foster adherence to these interventions. More research is warranted on the nature of such involvement from the perspective of patients and F/F.
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 | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".