The Effect of Dignity Therapy on Hope in Patients with Major Depression Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>INTRODUCTION:</strong> Despite the importance of the hope level increment in the patients with major depression disorder, fewer interventions have been applied to improve the hope level in the psychiatric patients, especially the depressed individuals.</p><p><strong>OBJECTIVE:</strong> To identify the dignity therapy effect on the hope level in the patients with major depression disorder.</p><p><strong>METHOD:</strong> In this random controlled clinical trial, 58 patients with major depression disorder, who were hospitalized in Ibn-e-Sina psychiatric hospital of Mashhad, were separated into two intervention (28 individuals) and control (30 individuals) groups. The intervention group has taken the dignity therapy (based on the standard protocol in three 30-45 minutes sessions) and the control group have been undertaken the normal caregiving without intervention. The research tool was the Herth hope index, which was filled exactly before and after intervention. The data analysis has been done by SPSS 11.5 and exact Fischer tests, Chi square, independent t-test and paired t-test.</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> 65.5 percent of the patients were female and 34.5 percent were male. Before the intervention, there was no significant statistical difference between the dignity therapy group (19.9±2.8) and the control group (20.5±1.6) in the average total hope score (p=0.39). However, the variations of the average total hope score before and after intervention between the dignity therapy group (4.7±2.9) and the control group (0.1±1.9) was significant (p&lt;0.001).</p><p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> According to the dignity therapy effect on the hope level increment in patients with major depression disorder, this unique and short clinical trial can be employed to increase the hope level in the patients with depression disorder.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".