Family members’ or friends’ involvement in self-care for patients with depressive symptoms and co-morbid chronic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the support that patients reported receiving from family or friends (F/F) while participating in a self-care intervention for depressive symptoms; examine associations between patient-reported F/F support and use of self-care materials; and describe F/F perceptions of involvement in a subsample of F/F. METHODS: One hundred eighty-nine of 223 (85%) patients aged 40+ with chronic physical conditions and co-morbid depressive symptoms participating in a randomized self-care intervention trial, completed structured telephone surveys at three months about the F/F support received. Ten F/F participated in post study qualitative interviews on the support provided. RESULTS: 30%, 44%, and 91% of patients reported overall F/F support with self-care, F/F involvement with the self-care intervention and emotional support, respectively. 61% felt positively and 10% felt negatively or conflicted with F/F support. F/F involvement in the self-care intervention was the only variable associated with patient use of self-care materials when examined alongside all F/F support variables (Proportional Odds Ratio = 1.21; 95% C.I. = 1.01, 1.45). F/F perceived less involvement in the self-care intervention than patients. DISCUSSION: Patients engaged in a self-care intervention for depressive symptoms use more self-care materials when they perceive F/F involvement in the intervention. Patients and F/F may perceive involvement differently and benefit from discussions about potential F/F roles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".