Self-help guided by trained lay providers for generalized anxiety disorder in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only a small proportion of older patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) seek professional help. Difficulties in accessing treatment may contribute to this problem. Guided self-help based on the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy (GSH-CBT) is one way of promoting access to psychological treatment. Moreover, because the therapist's role in GSH-CBT is limited to supporting the patient, this role could be assumed by trained and supervised lay providers (LPs) instead of licensed providers. The main goal of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of GSH-CBT guided by LPs for primary threshold or subthreshold GAD in older adults. METHODS: We will conduct a multisite randomized controlled trial comparing an experimental group receiving GSH-CBT guided by LPs (n = 45) to a wait-list control group (n = 45). Treatment will last 15 weeks and will be based on a participant's manual. Weekly telephone sessions with LPs (30 min maximum) will be limited to providing support. Data will be obtained through clinician evaluations and self-assessment questionnaires. Primary outcomes will be the tendency to worry and severity of GAD symptoms. Secondary outcomes will be anxiety symptoms, sleep difficulties, functional deficit, diagnosis of GAD, and cognitive difficulties. For the experimental group, measurements will take place at pre- and post-treatment and at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. For the control group, three evaluations are planned: two pre-treatment evaluations (before and after the waiting period) and after receiving treatment (post-treatment). The efficacy of GSH-CBT will be established by comparing the change in the two groups on the primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This project will provide evidence on the efficacy of a novel approach to treat GAD in older adults. If effective, it could be implemented on a larger scale and provide many older adults with much needed mental health treatment through an expanded workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03768544 , on December 7, 2018.
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 | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.011 |
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".