What Is The Potential For Family Physicians To Coach Patients’ Self-Care Of Depression: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential for family physicians (FPs) to be self-care coaches for patients with depression was explored within a feasibility study examining lay coach support for self-care of depressive symptoms in adults with chronic physical illness. METHODS: FPs were approached from a list of 400 randomly generated urban FPs to assist recruitment of adults with chronic illness and depressive symptoms. Patients received, independent of usual FP care, six months of lay coaching for self-care of depression. Nested within this intervention FPs completed questionnaires at study entry and termination exploring how they normally used self-care, the degree to which they promoted it, and their hypothetical interest in coaching self-care. Two-sided paired T-tests and McNemar's tests were performed respectively for continuous and binary outcomes to assess significance of change from study onset to completion. RESULTS: 110 / 400 FPs were contactable and eligible. 63 consented to participate, and 4 withdrew at onset. Of the 59 FP participants 86% (51/59) completed entry questionnaires and 63% (37/59) terminal ones. For physical illness versus depression significantly more FPs were familiar with self-care (p=0.002) and felt it more effective (p=0.013). Of 7 targeted illnesses for which self-care might be recommended depression was ranked 5th by them. Attitudes and practice did not change as a result of study participation. CONCLUSIONS: At present it is unlikely that FPs will act as depression self-care coaches, except perhaps on an individual basis. Changes in FP training, practice styles, practice support, and remuneration may be required to improve this. Language: en
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".