MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387316078 · doi:10.2196/50072

Circadian Reinforcement Therapy in Combination With Electronic Self-Monitoring to Facilitate a Safe Postdischarge Period for Patients With Major Depression: Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4387316078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne Sofie Aggestrup, Signe Dunker Svendsen, Anne Præstegaard, Philip Kaare Løventoft, Lasse Benn Nørregaard, Ulla Knorr, Henrik Dam, Erik Frøkjær, Konstantin V. Danilenko, Ida Hageman, Maria Faurholt‐Jepsen, Lars Vedel Kessing, Klaus Martiny

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrygFonden
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)MedicineCircadian rhythmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depression exhibit circadian disturbance of sleep and mood, and when they are discharged from inpatient wards, this disturbance poses a risk of relapse. We developed a circadian reinforcement therapy (CRT) intervention to facilitate the transition from the inpatient ward to the home for these patients. CRT focuses on increasing the zeitgeber strength for the circadian clock through social contact, physical activity, diet, daylight exposure, and sleep timing. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to prevent the worsening of depression after discharge by using CRT, supported by an electronic self-monitoring system, to advance and stabilize sleep and improve mood. The primary outcome, which was assessed by a blinded rater, was the change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to the end point. METHODS: Participants were contacted while in the inpatient ward and randomized 1:1 to the CRT or the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group. For 4 weeks, participants in both groups electronically self-monitored their daily mood, physical activity, sleep, and medication using the Monsenso Daybuilder (MDB) system. The MDB allowed investigators and participants to simultaneously view a graphical display of registrations. An investigator phoned all participants weekly to coinspect data entry. In the CRT group, participants were additionally phoned between the scheduled calls if specific predefined trigger points for mood and sleep were observed during the daily inspection. Participants in the CRT group were provided with specialized CRT psychoeducation sessions immediately after inclusion, focusing on increasing the zeitgeber input to the circadian system; a PowerPoint presentation was presented; paper-based informative materials and leaflets were reviewed with the participants; and the CRT principles were used during all telephone consultations. In the TAU group, phone calls focused on data entry in the MDB system. When discharged, all patients were treated at a specialized affective disorders service. RESULTS: Overall, 103 participants were included. Participants in the CRT group had a significantly larger reduction in Hamilton Depression Scale score (P=.04) than those in the TAU group. The self-monitored MDB data showed significantly improved evening mood (P=.02) and sleep quality (P=.04), earlier sleep onset (P=.009), and longer sleep duration (P=.005) in the CRT group than in the TAU group. The day-to-day variability of the daily and evening mood, sleep offset, sleep onset, and sleep quality were significantly lower in the CRT group (all P<.001) than in the TAU group. The user evaluation was positive for the CRT method and the MDB system. CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower depression levels and improved sleep quality in the CRT group than in the TAU group. We also found significantly lower day-to-day variability in daily sleep, mood parameters, and activity parameters in the CRT group than in the TAU group. The delivery of the CRT intervention should be further refined and tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02679768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02679768. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2101-z.

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)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207