In-person vs. eHealth Mindfulness-based Intervention for Adolescents with Chronic Illnesses: A Pilot Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) can improve mental health and well-being in adolescents with chronic illnesses. However, there are many barriers such as reduced mobility and distance which compromise accessibility to MBIs. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the Mindful Awareness and Resilience Skills for Adolescents (MARS-A) program in youth with chronic illnesses delivered in person or via eHealth. Method: In this mixed method randomized controlled trial, participants received weekly 90- minute long MARS-A sessions for 8 weeks, either in person or via a secure eHealth audiovisual platform allowing group interactions in real time. Data was collected at baseline, immediately after and two months post-MBI through saliva analyses, electronic participant logs and validated questionnaires assessing mindfulness skills and mental health outcomes. Results: Seven participants per group completed the intervention (total n=14, completion rate 77.8%). Paired t-test analyses revealed a significant reduction in depression/anxiety scores immediately post-intervention (p=0.048, Cohen’s d=0.934) and a significant reduction in pre-post mindfulness cortisol levels at week 8 (p=0.022, Cohen’s d=0.534) in the eHealth group. Frequency and duration of weekly individual home practice (eHealth: 6.5 times; 28.8 minutes; in-person: 6.0 times; 30.6 minutes) were similar in both groups and maintained at follow-up. Conclusion: This is the first study comparing in-person and eHealth delivery of an 8-week MBI for adolescents with chronic illnesses. Although the study was limited by the small size of the sample, our results suggest that eHealth delivery of MBIs may represent a promising avenue for increasing availability in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".