MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323351166 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.101

A101 VIRTUAL MINDFULNESS-BASED STRESS REDUCTION FOR ADULTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: FEASIBILITY TRIAL PRELIMINARY RESULTS

2023· article· en· W4323351166 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kaitlyn Delaney Chappell, Karen J. Goodman, Diana Meakins, Melanie Marsh-Joyal, Karen I. Kroeker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAttendanceAnxietyMindfulnessMental healthMindfulness-based stress reductionDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyClinical trialFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) often suffer from high levels of anxiety and depression. Despite high rates of mental health comorbidity, a low proportion of patients receive psychiatric referrals and treatment. In Canada, provincial health care plans cover psychiatric services, making them affordable for patients and making referral efficient for gastroenterologists. Psychiatrist-led virtually-delivered Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) has been associated with reducing feelings of stress, anxiety, and depression in several high-quality randomized control trials. It also reduces cost and travel requirements for patients, both which have been identified as barriers to accessing mental health treatment. Purpose To assess the feasibility of online-delivered MBSR for IBD patients, with feasibility outcomes defined as recruitment success, and attendance, adherence, and attrition of participating patients. Method Eligible participants were adult IBD patients aged 18-65 attending gastroenterology clinics in Edmonton, Alberta who self-identified as being anxious or depressed and/or were referred by their gastroenterologist. A research coordinator contacted eligible patients who expressed interest in participating after completing an assessment of symptoms and a semi-structured interview with a psychiatrist. The MBSR protocol was an 8-week group-based intervention aimed at giving participants tools to cope with stress effectively. Participants attended 8 weekly sessions lasting 2.5 hours/week and a one-time weekend session lasting 5 hours. They were also asked to practice every night for 45-60 minutes. Completion of the program required attendance of at least 6 of 8 weekly sessions and the weekend session. Two groups, led by the same team of qualified psychiatrists, started MBSR, with sessions occurring in the evening via Zoom. Result(s) Of the 64 patients referred to the study, 16 (25%) agreed to participate. Reasons for declining to participate are shown in Table 1, with 80% indicating they were too busy. Of the 16 patients enrolled, the median age was 36 (range: 18-55), 10 identified as female (62.5%) and 8 had Crohn’s Disease (50%). Attendance, adherence, and attrition data from the first group of 7 participants were recorded. Only 3 (42.8%) successfully completed the program. The participants that completed the program had an attendance rate of 100% and practiced 6 nights a week for an average of 25 minutes a night. A second group with 9 participants is currently ongoing. Image Conclusion(s) Although interest in a cost-free, virtual stress management resource was relatively high, willingness to enroll in MBSR specifically, was low, largely due to the time commitment. Follow-up interviews with those who enrolled and did not enroll in the intervention are underway to highlight the benefits and barriers to MBSR. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→