LIVING LIFE TO THE FULL 55-PLUS: A COMMUNITY-BASED INTERVENTION FOR REDUCING DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Living Life to the Full 55+ (LLTTF) was an 8-week, 12-hour, community educational program based on CBT principles. The program aim was to teach participant skills and techniques to cope effectively with life stress. Participants self-referred to the program by responding to advertisements or were otherwise referred to the program by local community centres. Following the promising results of the pilot study, a follow-up empirical study was conducted to assess the impact of the program on clinical measures and other notable measures over time. Study participants (N = 514) were recruited at partner sites hosting the program. Demographic and other data was collected to assess the impact of the program. Measures collected to assess the impact of the program were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), and a brief measure of loneliness/social connectedness. Participant data was collected pre/post-intervention, and at post-course follow-up periods (3/6/9-months). Preliminary repeated-measures ANOVA analyses found statistically significant changes in depression, anxiety, mental well-being, and loneliness scores, from pre- to post-intervention. Participant’ depression, anxiety, and loneliness scores significantly reduced from pre- to post-course. Participants also experienced a significant improvement in mental well-being from pre- to post-course. Observed decreases in loneliness and depression did not significantly change from post-course to any of the follow-up periods. Results suggest the viability of a nonclinical program for addressing depression and loneliness in older individuals, and have implications for community-based strategies attempting to address mental health issues in older Canadians
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".