Caring Contacts to Reduce Psychiatric Morbidity Following Hospitalization During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Caring Contacts are an emerging intervention that aims to reduce distress and suicide risk after acute psychiatric care. This trial aimed to determine whether, during a pandemic, there was any evidence that the mental health benefits and reduction in suicidal ideation (SI) associated with delivering Caring Contacts to recently discharged psychiatric patients were greater than a control communication. The secondary objective was to identify whether the predicted benefits were greater among people living alone or those diagnosed with depression. METHOD: = 100), with patients recruited from the adult Inpatient Psychiatry Unit at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada between August 2020 and May 2021. Participants were randomized (1:1) to the Caring Contact or control group. Participants received three Caring Contact or control communications via email or mail (on days 4, 21, and 56 post-discharge). Mental health symptoms were assessed using the self-report Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) scores at discharge (baseline) and when participants received each communication. Analysis of variance was used for the primary comparisons and exploratory analyses for subgroups. RESULTS: Both groups experienced a significant worsening of mental health symptoms at all time points post-discharge relative to baseline. There were no significant differences between groups at any time point, however, on day 4 there was a 24.2% and 72.6% attenuated worsening in the Caring Contact group compared to the control group for total symptom severity and SI, respectively. There was no significant interaction effect for the depression subgroup or those living alone. CONCLUSIONS: While this pilot study was not powered to identify significant differences between groups, results are indicative of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and provide some indication that Caring Contacts may have benefited patients in the days following discharge, supporting the need for larger-scale trials. The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (study ID NCT04456062).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".