A Randomized Controlled Trial for Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression: Effects of a 1 -Day Acceptance and Commitment Training Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive-behavioral therapies often are recommended for anxiety disorders. However, treatment adherence and compliance are major barriers for these treatments, which are often delivered in 10 to 12 sessions over several months. This randomized controlled trial (trial registration NCT02915874 at www.clinicaltrials.gov) examined the effectiveness and feasibility of a 1-day cognitive-behavioral intervention for mixed anxiety. METHODS: A total of 72 adults with moderate-to-high anxiety were randomized into a 1-day acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) work-shop (n = 44) or treatment as usual (n = 28). Follow-up assessments were conducted 6 and 12 weeks after the workshop. Clinical outcomes were anxiety (primary) and depressive (secondary) symptoms, as measured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory-II, respectively. Proposed mediators of ACT-psychological flexibility and commit-ted action-also were examined. RESULTS: Participants assigned to the ACT workshop showed significant improvements in anxiety (beta = -1.13; P = .02) and depression (beta = -1.09; P = .02) after 12 weeks. Consistent with the theoretical model, these clinical improvements were mediated by psychological flexibility and committed action. Notable limitations included the sample size, inability to blind to treatment condition, and a racially and ethnically homogeneous sample. CONCLUSIONS: Our 1-day ACT workshop was effective for anxiety with co-occurring depressive symptoms. One-day interventions are a promising alternative to weekly treatments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".