Examining the acceptability and feasibility of the Compassionate Mindful Resilience (CMR) programme in adults living with chronic kidney disease: the COSMIC study findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic kidney disease experience difficult physical and psychological symptoms, that impact quality of life, and are at increased risk of anxiety and depression. Access to specialist psychological support is limited. This study aimed to support a new service development project, in collaboration with Kidney Care UK, to implement the Compassionate Mindful Resilience (CMR) programme, developed by MindfulnessUK, which provides accessible mindfulness techniques and practices to enhance compassion and resilience, and explore its feasibility for people living with stage 4 or 5 kidney disease and transplant. METHODS: A multi-method feasibility design was utilised. Participants over 18 years, from the UK, with stage 4 or 5 kidney disease or post-transplant, and who were not currently undergoing psychotherapy, were recruited to the four-week CMR programme. Data was collected at baseline, post-intervention and three-months post to measure anxiety, depression, self-compassion, mental wellbeing, resilience, and mindfulness. The acceptability of the intervention for a kidney disease population was explored through qualitative interviews with participants, and the Mindfulness Teacher. RESULTS: In total, 75 participants were recruited to the study, with 65 completing the CMR programme. The majority were female (66.2%) and post-transplant (63.1%). Analysis of completed outcome measures at baseline and post-intervention timepoints (n = 61), and three-months post intervention (n = 45) revealed significant improvements in participant's levels of anxiety (p < .001) and depression (p < .001), self-compassion (p = .005), mental wellbeing (p < .001), resilience (p.001), and mindfulness (p < .001). Thematic analysis of interviews with participants (n = 19) and Mindfulness Teacher (n = 1) generated three themes (and nine-subthemes); experiences of the CMR programme that facilitated subjective benefit, participants lived and shared experiences, and practicalities of programme participation. All participants interviewed reported that they found programme participation to be beneficial. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the CMR programme has the potential to improve psychological outcomes among people with chronic kidney disease. Future randomized controlled trials are required to further test its effectiveness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".