MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2374610700 · doi:10.1177/0017896915622515

Adherence to a depression self-care intervention among primary care patients with chronic physical conditions: A randomised controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2374610700 on OpenAlex
Jane McCusker, Martín G. Cole, Mark J. Yaffe⃰, Erin Strumpf, Maida Sewitch, Tamara Sussman, Antonio Ciampi, Kim Lavoie, Éric Belzile

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreSt Mary's Hospital CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingMedicineDepression (economics)Intervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialMoodPhysical therapyWorkbookMotivational interviewingBibliotherapyReferralSelf-managementPsychiatryFamily medicinePsychologyPsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Among primary care patients with chronic physical conditions and comorbid depressive symptoms, to assess (1) the effect of lay telephone coaching on adherence to a psycho-educational intervention for depression, (2) demographic characteristics that predict adherence and (3) the association between adherence and 6-month outcomes. Design: Single blind randomised pragmatic trial of a lay telephone-supported depression self-care intervention compared to an unsupported intervention. Methods: All patients received a multimedia toolkit of paper and audiovisual materials on depression that provided education on depression and on self-care for depression. Core tools included a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)-based workbook and a mood monitoring notebook, with opportunities for written exercises and notes, and a video. Intervention group patients were additionally offered telephone coaching. Self-reported use of the materials was assessed at 3 and 6 months post-randomisation; 6-month outcomes were patient satisfaction and change from baseline in depression severity. Results: In all, 223 patients were randomised; 165 (74.0%) completed follow-up. Coached versus uncoached patients reported significantly greater use of the workbook, but not of other tools. Men used more audiovisual tools; women used more paper tools. Self-reported completion of written exercises and a greater number of coach contacts were associated with greater satisfaction, but not with improvement in depression. Conclusion: Telephone coaching can increase adherence to CBT-based tools for depression self-care; however, use of these tools may not improve depression outcomes. Many patients are capable of self-directed use of self-care educational materials. Sex differences in patterns of tool use may be helpful in the targeting of tools.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it