The acceptability and feasibility of a virtual mantram program for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders: mixed method results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for expanded options for therapeutic interventions for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder (SUD). The study aimed to examine evidence for the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of a virtual Mantram Repetition Program for adults with PTSD and SUD. METHODS: This project utilized mixed-method design (explanatory sequential design) to collect quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the program in terms of its feasibility and acceptability. The program took place over Webex, an encrypted virtual platform. The group ran over 8 weeks, was 90 min in length, and facilitated by two individuals per cohort. Each group had 4-5 participants given each group cycle. The study used the Mantram Repetition Program which is a brief mindfulness based non-tramua focused group intervention. RESULTS: Out of 43 participants enrolled, 5 people (11.6%) did not commence the program and 8 (18.6%) participants dropped out after commencing the program, resulting in 35 completers (81.4% retention rate). Treatment completion and retention were above 70%. Qualitative data explained several aspects of the program's acceptability including delivery methods, informative material provided and gaining a practical mindful tool to manage symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed quantitative and qualitative evidence of the Mantram Repetition Program's feasibility, acceptability and safety to be used with individuals with PTSD-SUD. Although further evaluation of virtual Mantram Program to control group in longitudinal trials is needed to identify how it compares with other interventions in the field. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05058963, (28/09/2021).
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 | 0.034 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".