Video intervention for the psychiatric waiting room: proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial of RESOLVE (Relaxation Exercise, SOLVing problem and cognitive Errors)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The waiting room in psychiatric services can provide an ideal setting for offering evidence-based psychological interventions that can be delivered through electronic media. Currently, there is no intervention available that have been developed or tested in mental health. AIMS: This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate a pilot design of RESOLVE (Relaxation Exercise, SOLving problem and cognitiVe Errors) to test the procedure and obtain outcome data to inform future, definitive trials (trial registration at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02536924, REB Number: PSIY-477-15). METHOD: Forty participants were enrolled and equally randomised to the intervention, RESOLVE plus treatment as usual arm (TAU), or to a control group (TAU only). Those in the intervention group watched RESOLVE in a room adjacent to the waiting area. Participants in the control received routine care. Outcome measures included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluations outcome measure; and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule. These measures were performed by a masked assessor at baseline and at 6-week follow-up. Additionally, we measured the number of contacts with mental health services during the prior 4 weeks. Both intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: The study proved feasible. We were able to recruit the required number of participants. There was a statistically significant improvement in depression (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.001), general psychopathology (P < 0.001) and disability (P = 0.0361) in favour of the intervention group. People in the intervention group were less likely to contact the service (P = 0.012) post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary evidence that evidence-based psychosocial interventions can be delivered through electronic media in a waiting-room setting. The outcome data from this study will be used for future definitive trials. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".