A psychosocial intervention for individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease: A feasibility randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The current study evaluated the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a psychosocial intervention, the Kidney Optimal Health Program, in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease were randomized to either a nine-session psychosocial intervention programme or usual care. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment and retention rates and programme acceptability. Participants completed assessments of depression, anxiety and psychosocial health at baseline and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare groups on outcomes over time. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight patients were screened for eligibility; 84 consented to participant and were randomized to receive the intervention (N = 42) or usual care (N = 42). 27 (32.1%) participants withdrew prior to baseline assessment. Of those who completed the baseline assessment (N = 57), trial retention was high (75.4% at 3-month, 80.7% at 6-month and 70.2% at 12-month follow-up). Participants reported high levels of programme acceptability. The patients who completed the intervention (N = 17) demonstrated significantly decreased depression at 12-month follow-up compared to the usual care group (N = 13). CONCLUSION: The results support the feasibility of the Kidney Optimal Health Program intervention in recruitment, retention and programme acceptability with an improved screening protocol. Preliminary support is provided for improvement in depressive symptoms in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Further investigation through a fully powered randomized controlled trial is warranted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".