Feasibility, acceptability and change in health following a telephone-based cognitive behaviour therapy intervention for patients with axial spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a telephone-based cognitive behaviour therapy (tCBT) intervention for individuals with axial SpA (axSpA), with and without co-morbid FM, and to measure the change in patient-reported health outcomes. METHODS: A convenience sample of individuals recruited from British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry for AS (BSRBR-AS) sites were offered a course of tCBT (framed as coaching). Patient-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and on course completion. Semi-structured qualitative interviews assessed intervention acceptability. Thematic analysis was informed by the theoretical framework of acceptability. RESULTS: 29%) and reported higher disease activity. Modest improvements were reported across a range of disease activity and wider health measures, with 62% of patients self-rating their health as improved (median 13 weeks post-intervention). Twenty-six participants were interviewed (including six who discontinued after initial assessment). tCBT was widely acceptable, offering a personalized approach. Despite low or unclear expectations, participants described improved sleep and psychological well-being and gained new skills to support self-management. Reasons for non-uptake of tCBT centred on lack of perceived need and fit with individual value systems. Many felt that tCBT would be most useful closer to diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Higher uptake among axSpA patients with co-morbid FM suggests that these individuals have additional needs. The findings are helpful in identifying patients most likely to engage with and benefit from tCBT and to maximize participation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".