International Committee on Mental Health in Cystic Fibrosis: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and European Cystic Fibrosis Society consensus statements for screening and treating depression and anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies measuring psychological distress in individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) have found high rates of both depression and anxiety. Psychological symptoms in both individuals with CF and parent caregivers have been associated with decreased lung function, lower body mass index, worse adherence, worse health-related quality of life, more frequent hospitalisations and increased healthcare costs. To identify and treat depression and anxiety in CF, the CF Foundation and the European CF Society invited a panel of experts, including physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, a pharmacist, parents and an individual with CF, to develop consensus recommendations for clinical care. Over 18 months, this 22-member committee was divided into four workgroups: Screening; Psychological Interventions; Pharmacological Treatments and Implementation and Future Research, and used the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome methodology to develop questions for literature search and review. Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsychINFO, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Psychiatry online and ABDATA by a methodologist at Dartmouth. The committee reviewed 344 articles, drafted statements and set an 80% acceptance for each recommendation statement as a consensus threshold prior to an anonymous voting process. Fifteen guideline recommendation statements for screening and treatment of depression and anxiety in individuals with CF and parent caregivers were finalised by vote. As these recommendations are implemented in CF centres internationally, the process of dissemination, implementation and resource provision should be closely monitored to assess barriers and concerns, validity and use.
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 | 0.066 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".