A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF SELF-HELP GUIDED BY LAY PROVIDERS FOR GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Low use of professional help for anxiety disorders in older adults may be due in part to limited access to mental health services. Self-help guided by lay providers (LPs) could help improve access to treatment. This study evaluated the efficacy and long-term outcomes of self-help guided by LPs for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in older adults. Participants (≥ 60 years) with threshold or subthreshold GAD were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 75) or a wait-list control group (n = 75). Intervention group participants used a manual presenting readings and exercises based on principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy and received weekly support calls by LPs. Groups were similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and initially did not differ significantly on outcomes. At post-treatment, the intervention group had decreased significantly on various measures while the wait-list group remained stable: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7): -4.8 vs -.03; Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ): -11.7 vs .07; Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI): -5.3 vs -.07. Probability of having a diagnosis of threshold GAD decreased significantly more in the intervention group (79% to 16% vs 74% to 53%). Intervention group scores on the GAD-7, the PSWQ, and the GAI as well as probability of having a diagnosis of threshold GAD remained stable at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Results provide evidence of the efficacy of self-help guided by LPs for GAD in older adults as well as of the maintenance of improvement following this treatment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".