Brief Mindfulness Intervention vs. Health Enhancement Program for Patients Undergoing Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between 20-50% of patients undergoing maintenance dialysis for end-stage kidney disease experience symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, associated with increased mortality, greater health care utilization, and decreased quality of life. It is unknown whether mindfulness-based interventions can improve depression and anxiety symptoms in patients receiving this treatment. METHODS: We conducted an 8-week multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing a brief mindfulness intervention (BMI) vs. an active control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in 55 patients receiving dialysis with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. The primary outcome was change in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression scores, with a primary analysis in participants with baseline PHQ-9 ≥ 10, and a secondary analysis including all participants. The secondary outcome was change in Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) anxiety scores with corresponding primary and secondary analyses. RESULTS: = 0.01). Secondary analyses revealed no differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing dialysis, both BMI and HEP may be helpful interventions for depression symptoms, and BMI may be superior to HEP for anxiety symptoms. Mindfulness-based and other psychosocial interventions may be further evaluated in those undergoing dialysis as treatment options for symptoms of depression and anxiety.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".