Adherence to a depression self-care intervention among primary care patients with chronic physical conditions: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".