The Effects of a Single-Session Virtual Rumination Intervention to Enhance Cognitive Functioning in Veterans With Subjective Cognitive Symptoms: Multimethod Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive concerns (SCCs) entail perceived difficulties in thinking or memory, often reported without substantial objective evidence of cognitive impairment. These concerns are prevalent among individuals with a history of brain injuries, neurological conditions, or chronic illnesses, contributing to both psychological distress and functional limitations. They are increasingly considered to be a risk factor for future objective decline. A considerable number of individuals reporting SCCs also exhibit mental health symptoms, such as a history of trauma, depression, or anxiety. Interventions that address modifiable emotional and cognitive factors related to SCC could improve functioning and quality of life. Therefore, the use of emotion regulation strategies, especially those directed at minimizing rumination, could serve as a promising focus for interventions aimed at mitigating subjective cognitive concerns in veteran populations. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study explored the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a brief, 1-session emotion regulation intervention called "Worry Less, Remember More." The Worry Less, Remember More intervention was designed to reduce rumination and improve subjective cognitive functioning in veterans with subjective cognitive changes (N=15). METHODS: We randomized 15 veterans to either the active telehealth condition or waitlist control and completed the intervention. Participants were aged between 31 and 67 (mean 49.5, SD 10.1) years, and the sample was primarily male (12/15, 83%) and White (10/15, 67%). The most common diagnoses were posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. Following the intervention, veteran input was sought through semistructured interviews with a subset of 12 participants, examining feasibility, acceptability, and perceived efficacy. Preliminary efficacy was also measured using pre- and postintervention self-report measures. RESULTS: Veterans reported that this intervention was acceptable, with 92% (11/12) of the sample reporting that they benefited from the intervention and would recommend the intervention to others with similar difficulties. Semistructured interviews revealed difficulties with feasibility, including problems with the remote consenting process, forgetting appointments, and needing additional strategies to remember to consistently use the interventions. The intervention improved self-reported cognitive symptoms on quantitative measures but did not improve self-reported rumination. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study establishes the preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the Worry Less, Remember More intervention for veterans with subjective cognitive symptoms. Future iterations of the intervention may benefit from simplifying the electronic consent process, providing reminders for appointments, and incorporating compensatory cognitive strategies to assist with using the telehealth system, as well as applying the strategies learned in the intervention. While future research is needed with larger samples, including nonveteran populations, the intervention may also be a useful clinical tool to bridge care between neuropsychology clinics and mental health 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".