MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213336931 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.207

A208 ASSESSING FEASIBILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY OF AN ONLINE MIND-BODY WELLNESS PROGRAM FOR PRIMARY BILIARY CHOLANGITIS

2022· article· en· W4213336931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Makayla Watt, Ashley Hyde, G. Wright, S Vander Well, John C. Spence, Andrew L. Mason, Marcus McLeod, Emily Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCanadian Nutrition SocietyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMedicinePerceived Stress ScaleDepression (economics)Mental healthPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryNursingStress (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Persons with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) experience significantly higher rates of fatigue, stress, anxiety, depression, and impaired health related quality of life (HRQOL) as compared to the general population. While online wellness programming has been shown to be effective in decreasing fatigue and improving mental wellness in a variety of chronic disease populations, limited data is available for PBC. Aims This pilot study aimed to assess the hypothesis that a 12-week, online, mind-body wellness program would be feasible (assessed through adherence and retention) and acceptable in people with PBC. We also aimed to explore indicators of impact on measures of wellbeing. Methods Persons with PBC were recruited across Alberta and British Columbia in January 2021. The program included a 20–30 minute video containing low intensity mindful movement, meditation, and breathwork (goal 2–3 times/week) as well as a weekly behaviour change tip, PBC tip from a physician, and PBC nutrition tip. The online programming was accompanied by brief (10-minute) once weekly phone check-ins from a member of the study team, and optional once monthly zoom group sessions hosted by the Canadian PBC Society. Satisfaction and adherence were assessed at the end of the study using a survey. The pre-post exploratory efficacy assessment included: fatigue (Modified Fatigue Impact Scale), perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and HRQOL (PBC-40). Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews at the end of the study to explore experiences with the intervention, and gather feedback for improvement. Results Participants (N = 32) completed baseline surveys and 29 (91%) were retained to end-of-study. Twenty-five (86%) adhered to the program goal of carrying out the mind-body practice at least 2–3 days per week. Comparing baseline to end-of-study, significant reductions were observed in fatigue (13%, p=0.004), anxiety (30%, p=0.005), and depression (28%, p=0.022), and significant improvements were observed in the PBC-40 itch (22%, 0.043), fatigue (13%, 0.005), cognitive (17%, 0.006), and emotional (18%, 0.001) domains. Eleven individuals participated in qualitative interviews, reporting an increase in energy, a more positive outlook, and increased knowledge of PBC. Feedback supported acceptability (satisfaction score of 90%), with fatigue cited as the primary barrier to increased program participation. Conclusions These findings suggest that a 12-week online mind-body intervention is feasible and acceptable to persons with PBC and has promising impact on efficacy. Recognizing the limitations of a single-arm study with a small sample size, a future RCT will be designed using this feedback. Funding Agencies MITACS Accelerate, Canadian PBC Society

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→