Life review therapy for older adults with moderate depressive symptomatology: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Although there is substantial evidence for the efficacy of life review therapy as an early treatment of depression in later life, its effectiveness in natural settings has not been studied. The present study evaluates an intervention based on life review and narrative therapy in a large multi-site, pragmatic randomized controlled trial(RCT). METHOD. Life review therapy was compared with care as usual. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms;secondary outcomes were anxiety symptoms, positive mental health, quality of life, and current major depressive episode (MDE). To identify groups for whom the intervention was particularly effective, moderator analyses were carried out (on sociodemographic variables, personality traits, reminiscence functions, clinically relevant depressive and anxiety symptoms, and past MDEs). RESULTS. Compared with care as usual (n=102), life review therapy (n=100) was effective in reducing depressive symptoms, at post-treatment (d=0.60, B= -5.3, p<0.001), at 3-month follow-up (d=0.50, B= -5.0, p<0.001) and for the intervention also at 9-month follow-up (t=5.7, p<0.001). The likelihood of a clinically significant change in depressive symptoms was significantly higher [odds ratio (OR) 3.77, p<0.001 at post-treatment ; OR 3.76, p<0.001 at the 3-month follow-up]. Small significant effects were found for symptoms of anxiety and positive mental health.Moderator analyses showed only two significant moderators, the personality trait of extraversion and the reminiscence function of boredom reduction. CONCLUSIONS. This study shows the effectiveness of life review therapy as an early intervention for depression in an ecologically valid context, supporting its applicability to a broad target group. The intervention is also effective in reducing anxiety symptoms and strengthening positive mental health.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".