A home study-based spirituality education program decreases emotional distress and increases quality of life--a randomized, controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although epidemiological studies have reported protective effects of religion and spirituality on mental health, it is unknown whether spirituality can be used as an intervention to improve psychological well-being. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a home study-based spirituality program on mood disturbance in emotionally distressed patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A non-blinded, randomized, wait list-controlled trial of 165 individuals with mood disturbance [score of >40 on the Profile of Mood States (POMS)] were recruited from primary care clinics in a Canadian city between August 2000 and March 2001. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to a spirituality group (an 8-week audiotaped spirituality home-study program), a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction group (attendance at facilitated classes for 8 weeks), or a wait-list control group (no intervention for 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were mood disturbance, measured using POMS, and quality of life, measured using the SF-36, a short-form health survey with 36 questions. The POMS and the SF-36 were completed at baseline, at 8 weeks, and at 12 weeks. RESULTS: At the end of the 8-week intervention period, the mean POMS score improvement was -43.1 (-45.7%) for the spirituality group, -22.6 (-26.3%) for the meditation group, and -10.3 (11.3%) for the control group (P<.001 for spirituality vs control group; P=.034 for spirituality vs meditation group). Mean improvement in the SF-36 mental component summary score was 14.4 (48.6%) for the spirituality group, 7.1 (22.3%) for the meditation group, and 4.7 (16.1%) for the control group (P<.001 for spirituality vs control group; P=.029 for spirituality vs meditation group). At 12 weeks, POMS and SF-36 scores remained significantly different from baseline for the spirituality group.
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 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".