MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221130933 · doi:10.1177/20543581221074562

Long-term Effects of a Brief Mindfulness Intervention Versus a Health Enhancement Program for Treating Depression and Anxiety in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4221130933 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christina Rigas, Haley Park, Marouane Nassim, Chien‐Lin Su, Kyle T. Greenway, Mark L. Lipman, Clare McVeigh, Márta Novák, Emilie Trinh, Ahsan Alam, Rita S. Suri, István Mucsi, Susana G. Torres‐Platas, Helen Noble, Harmehr Sekhon, Soham Rej, Michael Lifshitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyRandomized controlled trialHemodialysisDepression (economics)PopulationDialysisPhysical therapyMindfulnessQuality of life (healthcare)Patient Health QuestionnaireInternal medicinePsychiatryDepressive symptomsClinical psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Depression and anxiety affect approximately 50% of patients with kidney failure receiving hemodialysis and are associated with decreased quality of life and increased risk of hospitalization and mortality. A Brief Mindfulness Intervention (BMI) may be promising in treating depressive and anxiety symptoms in this population, but the long-term sustainability of the intervention's effects is unknown. Objective: We previously conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 55) comparing an 8-week BMI with an active control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) for patients receiving dialysis, with depression and/or anxiety. Here, we examine the 6-month follow-up data to determine the long-term sustainability of BMI versus HEP in reducing (1) depressive symptoms, (2) anxiety symptoms, and (3) the efficacy of BMI versus HEP in reducing the likelihood of hospitalization. Design: In this study, we analyzed 6-month follow-up data from an 8-week assessor-blinded parallel RCT, which evaluated the efficacy of a BMI against an active control, HEP, in patients receiving hemodialysis with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. Setting: The study took place at hemodialysis centers in 4 tertiary-care hospitals in Montreal, Canada. Participants: Participants included adults aged ≥18 years who were receiving in-center hemodialysis 3 times per week and had symptoms of depression and/or anxiety as indicated by a score ≥6 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and/or the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Methods: Participants were randomized to the treatment arm (BMI) or the active control arm (HEP) and completed assessments at baseline, 8 weeks, and 6-month follow-up. Depression was assessed using the PHQ-9, and anxiety was assessed by the GAD-7. Hospitalization rates were assessed using medical chart information. Results: We observed significant decrease in depression scores over 6 months in both BMI and HEP groups, with no significant difference between groups. Anxiety scores significantly decreased over 6 months, but only in the BMI group. Brief Mindfulness Intervention and Health Enhancement Program were comparable in terms of hospitalization rates. Limitations: The limitations of our study include the modest sample size and lack of a third arm such as a waitlist control. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the beneficial effects of BMI and HEP for improving mood disorder symptoms in patients receiving dialysis persist at 6-month follow-up. Both interventions showed sustained effects for depressive symptoms, but BMI may be more useful in this population given its efficacy in reducing anxiety symptoms as well. Trial registration: Prior to recruitment, the trial had been registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03406845).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207