MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318389350 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.24.23284965

The Selah trial: A preference-based partially randomized waitlist control study of three stress management interventions

2023· preprint· en· W4318389350 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rae Jean Proeschold‐Bell, David E. Eagle, Logan C. Tice, Alyssa Platt, Jia Yao, Jessie S. Larkins, Eunsoo Timothy Kim, Joshua A. Rash

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersDuke Endowment
KeywordsMindfulnessMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialStress managementPhysical therapyHeart rate variabilityInternal medicineClinical psychologyHeart ratePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objective Chronic stress can undermine psychological and physiological health. We sought to evaluate three stress management interventions among clergy, accounting for intervention preferences. Methods United Methodist clergy in North Carolina enrolled in a partially randomized, preference-based waitlist control trial. The interventions were: mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), Daily Examen prayer practice, and Stress Proofing (stress inoculation plus breathing skills). The intervention period spanned 12 weeks with a 12-week follow-up. Daily text message data were collected to assess practice across the 24 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were symptoms of stress using the Calgary Symptoms of Stress Inventory and 48-hour ambulatory heart rate variability (HRV) at 12-weeks post-intervention compared to waitlist control. Survey data were collected at 0, 12 and 24 weeks, with HRV collected at 0 and 12 weeks. Results 255 participants (mean age=54 years old; 91% white; 48% female) were randomized and initiated an intervention (n=184) or waitlist control (n=71). Compared to waitlist control, lower stress symptoms were found for MBSR participants [Mean Difference (MD)=-0.30, 95% CI:-0.41,-0.20; p <.001] and Stress Proofing (MD=-0.27, 95% CI:-0.40,-0.14; p <.001) at 12 weeks, and Daily Examen participants not until 24 weeks (MD=-0.24, 95% CI:-0.41,-0.08). Only MBSR participants demonstrated improvement in HRV at 12 weeks (MD=+3.32 millisecond; 95% CI:0.21,6.44; p =.036). Conclusions MBSR demonstrated robust improvement in self-reported and objective physical correlates of stress whereas Stress Proofing and Daily Examen resulted in improvements in self-reported correlates of stress only. These brief practices were sustainable and beneficial for an occupational sample during the COVID pandemic. Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04625777 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04625777 )

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207