The feasibility and acceptability of an online mind-body wellness program for patients with primary biliary cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Persons with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) experience significantly higher rates of mental distress and impaired health related quality of life (HrQoL) than the general population. Given limited evidence, but a high need, our primary aim was to assess feasibility and acceptability of a 12-week, online, mind–body wellness program in people with PBC. Methods: This was a single-group, sequential mixed-methods, pre-post feasibility, and acceptability study. Core program components included follow-along movement, meditation and breathwork videos, and cognitive behavioural therapy informed activities. This was supplemented by weekly phone check-ins. Feasibility was assessed by recruitment, adherence, and retention. The pre-post exploratory efficacy assessment included surveys for fatigue, perceived stress, anxiety, depression, HrQoL, and resilience. A qualitative descriptive approach with semi-structured interviews evaluated study experiences. Results: Thirty-two participants were recruited within 30 days and 29 (91%) were retained to end-of-study. Of these, 25 (86%) adhered to carrying out the mind–body practice at least 2–3 days per week. Feedback supported acceptability (satisfaction score 90%). Significant improvements were observed in fatigue (13%, p = 0.004), anxiety (30%, p = 0.005), depression (28%, p = 0.004), and five PBC-40 domains (itch, fatigue, cognitive, emotional, general symptoms). Qualitative interviews revealed improved stress management, better coping, and a more positive mindset. Fatigue and self-sabotaging thoughts were cited as barriers to participation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that a 12-week online mind–body intervention is feasible and acceptable in patients with PBC. After iterative refinement, a randomized controlled trial will be designed using this feedback.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".