Life goal reconstruction for people with chronic health conditions: Feasibility of a brief internet-based writing intervention using a minimally monitored delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examination of people's narratives after significant life changes revealed that engaging in current and future goal reconstruction was associated with higher levels of well-being while a failure to disengage from "what might have been" was associated with lower levels of well-being. This work led to the development of a life goal writing intervention that has received empirical support with most studies conducted among nonclinical populations. This study aims to assess the feasibility of a brief and minimally monitored internet-delivered writing therapy developed to facilitate life goal reconstruction among adults diagnosed with various chronic health conditions. Sixteen adults showing mild to moderate levels of anxiety or depression were recruited and a single group pretest/post-test design used. The 5-week program is comprised of psychoeducation, five weekly 30-min writing sessions, automated emails and symptom monitoring. Feasibility outcome measures included attrition, treatment adherence, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness. Primary outcome measures were The Patient Health Questionnaire -9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder -7 (GAD-7). Attrition was low (12%) and adherence high (93%). All but one study completer reported they would recommend the program. Mixed effects models revealed a significant and large reduction from pre-treatment to post-treatment on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 and remission rates of 67% and 64% respectively. These findings suggest that it would be feasible to proceed to a larger trial. The brief duration of the intervention combined to a minimally monitored delivery may lend itself to implementation in routine clinical care milieus such as hospital settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".