Development of a Theoretically Informed Web-Based Mind-Body Wellness Intervention for Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Formative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mind-body interventions have the potential to positively impact the symptom burden associated with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). Interventions are more likely to be effective if they are informed by a theoretical framework. The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) and the behaviour change technique taxonomy version 1 (BCTv1) provide frameworks for intervention development. OBJECTIVE: This study describes how theory has guided the development of a 12-week multicomponent mind-body wellness intervention for PBC. METHODS: The steps involved in developing the BCW intervention included specifying the target behavior; explaining barriers and facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour and the theoretical domains framework; identifying intervention functions to target explanatory domains; and selecting relevant behavior change techniques to address intervention functions. Qualitative data from patients with inflammatory bowel disease using an earlier version of the program and feedback from a PBC patient advisory team were used to guide intervention development. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators to intervention participation associated with capability, opportunity, and motivation were identified. Intervention functions and behavior change techniques were identified to target each barrier and facilitator. CONCLUSIONS: The Peace Power Pack PBC intervention was developed to help individuals with PBC manage their symptom burden. The theoretical frameworks employed in this intervention provide direction on targeting antecedents of behavior and allow standardized reporting of intervention components. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04791527; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04791527.
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 | 0.027 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".