Combining bibliotherapy and community-based intervention: An alternative model for treating depression in older adults with health problems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older persons who suffer from health problems leading to functional impairment are at risk for developing depression. Moreover, the combination of functional impairment and depression creates a complex situation requiring special treatment consideration. A successful intervention must address issues unique to late-life depression and must do so in the context of physical disability caused by serious health problems. The purpose of this work was to create a community-based intervention program that would address the needs of this special population of older persons. An intervention based on behavioural principles and on an empirically validated model, Lewinsohn's (1986) Control Your Depression , was modified to suit the needs of this population. The modifications included three distinctive features. First, the program was designed to be readable and relevant to the life circumstances of older adults with special physical impediments. Second, the aim of the program was to deliver this intervention in a self-administered, minimal-contact format, in order to facilitate access to this under-serviced population. Third, the program was adapted to be delivered by non-mental health professionals---in this case, home-care nurses---who were in a health-care delivery role with older individuals. These three elements were combined to create an efficacious model of service delivery that was able to overcome barriers to access, make use of existing community resources, address special issues of functional impairment, and that was deliverable with minimal supervision. This model was tested in three separate series, each with two participants. A multiple-baseline design allowed a data-driven refinement of the model, and was also well-suited for behavioural analysis. In Series A, we tested the feasibility of the model. Results indicated that the program is feasible, and especially highlighted the role of reinstating pleasant activities in alleviating depression in these participants. Series B further examined the role of pleasant activities. Results confirmed the initial findings that reinstating pleasant activities is a pivotal part of the treatment for this population. Some adjustments were added to produce a finalized model in Series C, with positive results. Overall, these three series of studies indicated that the model is feasible, deliverable, and efficacious in reducing depression in older participants. In addition, results showed a positive impact on participants' functional ability, especially in the areas where the impairment is reversible, such as social functioning and activities of daily living. This model has implications for future applications that encourage the development of alternative models of intervention capable of meeting the unique needs of special populations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".