Secondary outcomes of the guided self-help behavioral activation and physical activity for depression trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This article presents secondary outcome variables from a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of two guided self-help interventions for the treatment of depression: behavioral activation (BA) and physical activity (PA). Both interventions resulted in significant reductions in depressive symptoms compared to the wait-list control group, however the mechanisms by which these interventions influenced depression were not presented.Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to compare changes in secondary outcome variables to gain insight into the mechanisms by which reactivation interventions reduce depressive symptoms.Results: Mixed-model analysis of variances (ANOVAs) revealed significant increases in life satisfaction (Main effect: F(3, 91.71) = 4.63, p < 0.01) and self-efficacy (Main effect: F(3, 91.32) = 4.05, p < 0.01) as well as significant decreases in negative affect (Main effect: F(2, 75.88) = 5.24, p < 0.01) and loneliness (Main effect: F(2, 71.78) = 7.49, p < 0.01) in both interventions at pre-, mid-, post-intervention and follow-up. The group x time interactions were not significant, suggesting that the PA and BA interventions had comparable effects over time.Conclusion: These findings provide insight into the potential mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of guided self-help PA and BA interventions on depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".