Tolerability and suitability of brief group mindfulness-oriented interventions in psychiatric inpatients: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mindfulness-oriented therapies have a positive impact on patients' overall well-being and alleviate many psychiatric conditions. However, little is known about their use in people with severe mental illness. We aimed to identify which clinical and sociodemographic factors are associated with suitability/tolerability of a brief group mindfulness-oriented therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study examines pre-/post-data from 40 psychiatric inpatients who underwent one session of a 10-min mindfulness-oriented group intervention between January and March 2014. The main outcome was 'suitability for and tolerating the brief mindfulness-oriented group intervention'. We assessed potential correlates of the main outcome, including female gender, shorter hospitalisation, the absence of psychosis and good pre-morbid functioning. RESULTS: The intervention was well tolerated (92.5%) and 50% of patients met both of our relatively stringent suitability and tolerability criteria. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were not associated with suitability/tolerability. Tai chi was the most suitable/tolerable compared to body scan and mindful eating (76.5% vs. 35.7% vs. 22.2%, Fisher's exact p = 0.01, Bonferroni p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Brief group mindfulness therapy interventions are very well tolerated and often suitable for acutely hospitalised psychiatric inpatients, including those with acute psychosis. Mindfulness-oriented intervention with an active component (e.g., tai chi, mindful walking) may potentially be best suited for this population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".