A mixed-method randomized feasibility trial evaluating progressive muscle relaxation or autogenic training on depressive symptoms and quality of life in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who have depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) and autogenic training (AT) are effective relaxation techniques to reduce depressive symptoms. However, no studies on their effectiveness have been conducted among people living with HIV and depressive symptoms. The primary aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of PMR and AT interventions among people living with HIV who have depressive symptoms. A secondary aim was to assess the potential effectiveness of these interventions on depressive symptoms and quality of life. METHODS: This study was a three-arm pilot randomized control trial with mixed methods. Participants were randomized to PMR, AT, or a control group (CG), with four assessments (baseline, and at one, three, and six months). The PMR and AT interventions consisted of six 1 h sessions of individual training over 12 weeks, plus home practice. Recruitment, attrition, and completion rates were calculated. Depressive symptoms and quality of life were assessed at all times. Participants' perceptions of the interventions were collected in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Following the screening, 54/63 people met the inclusion criteria, and 42/54 were randomly allocated to the PMR group (n=14), AT group (n=14), and CG (n=14). Six participants (43%; 95% CI 18-71%) in the PMR group and 10 (71%; 95% CI 42-92%) in the AT group completed the intervention. Participants reported better emotion management and improvements in depressive symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study suggests that a randomized trial to test the effectiveness of these interventions is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01901016.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".