Higher Rumination Tendency Is Associated with Reduced Positive Effects of Daily Activity Participation in People with Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Rumination, a response style characterized by self-reflection loops of negative thoughts, tends to exacerbate depressive symptoms and may impair daily functional behaviors of individuals with depression. However, the specific impacts of rumination on activity participation remain unclear. The current study was aimed at examining the differences in daily activity participation profiles between clinically depressed people with higher versus lower rumination tendencies, with the hope to provide insightful suggestions for improving the quality of life of ruminative individuals with major depression. Methods: We recruited 143 participants with a depression-related diagnosis from psychiatric daycare centers or clinics and analyzed the differences in activity participation profiles between individuals with higher versus lower rumination tendencies. Results: Although compared to those with lower rumination tendencies, participants with higher rumination tendencies spent a longer time in activity participation; they experienced lower participation quality during these activities. Furthermore, their activity participation was primarily motivated by meeting others' expectations rather than self-interest. They also misattributed participation restriction to "lack of family support," indicating that the unhealthy rumination pattern might be the cause of their lack of positive feelings from engaging in meaningful daily activities. Conclusions: The current results suggest that the unhealthy motivation behind activity participation seems to be an important factor that decreases the quality of participation in individuals with higher rumination tendency. Establishing a healthy motivation for activity participation is therefore critical for improving their quality of participation. As an initial step, OT interventions could put a focus on helping them clarify and escape from the source of negative rumination cycles that impede their positive feeling of activity participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".