Self‐care tools to treat depressive symptoms in patients with age‐related eye disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is very common in people with age-related eye disease. Our goal was to determine if self-care tools plus limited telephone support could reduce depressive symptoms in patients with age-related macular degeneration or diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN: A single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital in Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty participants were recruited. METHODS: To be eligible, participants must have had either late stage age-related macular degeneration or diabetic retinopathy, at least mild depressive symptoms, and visual acuity better than 20/200. Half were randomized to the intervention arm and half to delayed intervention/usual care. The intervention consisted of large print written and audio tools incorporating cognitive-behavioral principles plus three 10-minute telephone calls from a lay coach. Eight-week follow-up data were collected by telephone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the 8-week change in depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, life space and self-efficacy. RESULTS: The baseline mean logMAR visual acuity was 0.37 (SD = 0.20), and the baseline mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score was 9.5 (SD = 3.9) indicating moderate depressive symptoms. After adjusting for baseline imbalances in visual acuity, the intervention reduced depressive symptoms by 2.1 points more than usual care (P = 0.040). The intervention was not associated with the secondary outcomes (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-care tools plus telephone coaching led to a modest improvement in depressive symptoms in patients with age-related eye disease. Additional research on how to maximize their effect is necessary.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".