An online mind-body program improves mental health and quality of life in primary biliary cholangitis: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: People with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) experience high rates of mental distress and fatigue despite standard of care therapy. We aimed to assess the impact of an online mind-body intervention on these symptoms. METHODS: This 12-week RCT used sequential mixed-methods evaluation. Alongside standard of care, participants with primary biliary cholangitis were randomized to receive weekly countdown emails, or the intervention consisting of (i) a weekly 20-30 minute-mind-body follow-along video, (ii) weekly 5-10-minute psychology-based "managing chronic disease skills videos," and (iii) 10-minute telephone check-ins. The primary outcome was a change in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Secondary outcomes evaluated changes in fatigue, perceived stress, resilience, and health-related quality of life. ANCOVA determined between-group differences. RESULTS: Of the 87 randomized patients (control group: n = 44, intervention group: n = 43), the between-group HADS total score improved by 20.0% (95% CI 4.7, 35.2, p = 0.011). Significant improvements were seen in depression (25.8%), perceived stress (15.2%), and 2 primary biliary cholangitis-40 domains [emotional symptoms (16.3%) and social symptoms (11.8%)] with a mean satisfaction of 82/100. This corresponded with end-of-study qualitative findings. Although no improvements were observed in fatigue in the main analysis, a significant benefit was observed in the subgroup of intervention participants (20/36;56%) who completed the mind-body video routine at least 3 times per week. CONCLUSION: This intervention improved measures of mental wellness and quality of life with high satisfaction and reasonable adherence. Future studies could explore strategies to optimize adherence and target fatigue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".