Adherence to a Telephone-Supported Depression Self-Care Intervention for Adults With Chronic Physical Illnesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed adherence to and predictors of two components of a telephone-supported self-care intervention for depression among primary care adults aged 40 and above with chronic physical illnesses and comorbid depressive symptoms. Participants received a “toolkit” containing six self-care tools. Trained lay self-care “coaches” negotiated a contact schedule of up to weekly contacts. Study outcomes were levels of completion of the self-care tool and the coach contacts at the 2-month follow-up. Coaches reported the number of completed contacts. In all, 57 of 63 participants completed the 2-month follow-up. Of these, 67% completed at least 1 tool; the mean number of coach contacts was 5.7 ( SD = 2.4) of a possible 9 contacts (63% adherence). Higher disease comorbidity and lower initial depression severity independently predicted better tool adherence. Findings suggest that people with chronic physical illnesses can achieve acceptable levels of adherence to a depression self-care intervention similar to those reported for other populations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".