Mindfulness-based stress reduction to improve depression, pain and high patient global assessment in controlled rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to improve distressing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that persisted in RA patients with clinically controlled inflammation (controlled RA). Methods: In a pragmatic pilot study, we offered mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), a group intervention, to controlled RA patients who had high (≥16) Centre for Evaluation Studies depression (CES-D) scores and/or patient general assessment of disease activity (PGA) at least 2/10 larger than evaluator general assessment (EGA) (PGA-EGA: Delta). Evaluations before, 6 and 12 months after MBSR included CES-D, PGA, modified HAQ, simple disease activity index (SDAI), anxiety (general anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), coping strategies (coping with health injuries and problems; CHIP), sleep disturbance and pain. Facilitators and obstacles to recruitment and participation were identified. A subset of patients was interviewed for qualitative analysis of their experience. Results: Out of 306 screened patients, 65 were referred, 39 (60%) agreed and 28 (43%) completed MBSR. Anticipated burden, timing and frequency of group meetings, commuting issues, age extremes and co-morbidities were barriers to participation. Up to 12 months after MBSR, anxiety, depression, emotion-oriented coping, sleep and function significantly improved. Nonetheless, no significant impact was observed on pain, PGA, Delta or SDAI. The interviews revealed that benefits, including integration of effective coping strategies, were maintained. Conclusion: We addressed MBSR feasibility issues and selection of outcomes in controlled RA patients with distressing PROs. For patients who chose to participate in MBSR, lasting benefits were evident for anxiety, depression, sleep and function. Larger studies are required to evaluate the weaker impact of MBSR on RA-related pain and PGA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".