The impact of a primary care stress management and wellbeing programme (RENEW) on occupational participation: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Stress has been identified as a risk factor in both physical and mental illness and can negatively impact on an individual’s ability to participate in daily occupations. There has been an increased emphasis on addressing mental health in a primary care context using a health promotion approach. The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the acceptability of a primary care 6-week stREss maNagemEnt and Well-being (RENEW) programme. Method This pilot study used a mixed methods convergent parallel design. Twelve individuals with self-reported experiences of stress participated in the programme. The Canadian Measure of Occupational Performance, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and visual analogue scales for stress, concentration, sleep and appetite were administered at three time points. A focus group and individual interviews explored participants’ experiences of the programme and impact on occupational participation. Results There were statistically significant improvements in occupational performance and satisfaction, anxiety and self-reported stress. Study participants reported that attendance at the programme increased their awareness of stress and gave them strategies to manage their stress. Conclusion The positive findings from this pilot study suggest that the RENEW programme has potential as a health promotion intervention in primary care that warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".