Psychological interventions for reducing anxiety in patients undergoing first-time colonoscopy: a pilot and feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), evaluating the efficacy and patients' perceptions of a psychological intervention aimed at reducing anxiety levels in adults undergoing first-time colonoscopy. METHODS: Adults undergoing first-time colonoscopy were randomized to a psychological intervention vs. sham intervention. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as a recruitment rate of >50%. Patients' state anxiety was assessed before and after the intervention using the state-trait inventory for cognitive and somatic anxiety (STICSA) score. Follow-up interviews were performed within 1 week with a sample of patients and focus groups with clinical staff. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were recruited from 180 eligible patients (72%). Eighty were randomized and completed the study (n = 39) in the psychological intervention group and (n = 41) in the sham. In the psychological intervention group, pre- and postmedian STICSA scores were 29 and 24 (P < 0.001), respectively. In the sham group, pre- and postmedian scores were 31 and 25 (P < 0.001), respectively. Follow-up interviews with patients (n = 13) suggested that 100% of patients perceived the psychological intervention as beneficial and would recommend it to others. CONCLUSION: The study was feasible. Patients in both groups improved their anxiety scores, but there were no significant differences between arms. Despite this, patients receiving psychological intervention perceived a benefit from the relaxation exercises.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".