MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391609058 · doi:10.1186/s40814-024-01452-0

A feasibility (pilot) mixed methods study of an innovative non-pharmacological breath-based yoga and social-emotional intervention program in an at-risk youth sample in London, Canada

2024· article· en· W4391609058 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Akshya Vasudev, Emily Ionson, Janani Sathiaselan, Anurag Thatipalli, Aman Chauhan, C. Hassan, Javeed Sukhera, Mark Speechley, Cheryl Forchuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Mental Health AssociationLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Sample (material)PsychologyApplied psychologySocial emotional learningClinical psychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Various service provision models for youth at risk of homelessness have been researched and implemented, including access to housing and physical and mental health resources. However, even with these interventions, we remain unaware of how best to manage symptoms of depression and anxiety and the rate of drug use in these populations primarily because of a lack of feasibility data. METHODS: This paper presents the results of a mixed-methods study in London, Canada, that examined the feasibility of implementing a biopsychosocial intervention, SKY Schools, in at-risk youth aged between 16 and 25 (n = 49). The study also recorded qualitative responses about the program's usefulness from the perspective of the service users. The SKY Schools intervention consisted of social-emotional learning combined with Sudarshan Kriya Yoga, a standardized yoga-based breathing exercise routine. The intervention program was divided into two phases: an active learning phase and a reinforcement phase. The following feasibility outcome measures were collected: (1) the number of potential participants approached per month, (2) number (proportion) who were successfully screened, (3) the proportion of screened participants who enrolled, (4) the rate of retention in the study, (5) rate of adherence to study protocol, (6) proportion of planned ratings that were completed, (7) intervention cost per case, (8) completeness of final data for analysis, (9) length of time to collect all data, (10) quality of all collected data, (11) determining if partnering community organizations were willing to conduct the study as per study protocol, (12) determining if there were any capacity issues with partners providing intervention and investigators being able to perform the tasks that they were committed to doing, (13) determining if there were any problems of entering the data into a computer, (14) preliminary data about the safety of the intervention, and (15) preliminary estimate of treatment effects. RESULTS: All feasibility outcome measures were collectible. In the city of London, Canada it was feasible to conduct a pilot study in this population of youth at risk of homelessness. Foremost among the findings was a high retention rate (61.2%) and overall positive qualitative feedback with a number of potential suggestions to improve the delivery and quality of the intervention. However, we had a significantly low recruitment rate (0.27 participants per week) suggesting that multiple sites will be needed to achieve an adequate sample size for a subsequent definitive trial. CONCLUSIONS: Future researchers may consider the findings of this feasibility study when designing a randomized control trial to further assess the efficacy and tolerability of SKY Schools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02749240. Registered April 22, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02749240 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.254
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207