The Selah trial: A preference-based partially randomized waitlist control study of three stress management interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic stress undermines psychological and physiological health. We tested three remotely delivered stress management interventions among clergy, accounting for intervention preferences. United Methodist clergy in North Carolina enrolled in a partially randomized, preference-based waitlist control trial. The interventions were: mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), Daily Examen prayer practice, and Stress Proofing (stress inoculation plus breathing skills). Co-primary outcomes were symptoms of stress (Calgary Symptoms of Stress Inventory) and 48-hour ambulatory heart rate variability (HRV) at 12 weeks compared to waitlist control. Survey data were collected at 0, 12, and 24 weeks and 48-hour ambulatory HRV at 0 and 12 weeks. The 255 participants were 91% White and 48% female. Forty-nine participants (22%) without a preference were randomly assigned between the three interventions (n = 40) and waitlist control (n = 9). Two hundred six participants (78%) with a preference were randomly assigned to waitlist control (n = 62) or their preferred intervention (n = 144). Compared to waitlist control, MBSR [mean difference (MD) = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.41, -0.20; P < .001] and Stress Proofing (MD = -0.27, 95% CI: -0.40, -0.14; P < .001) participants had lower stress symptoms at 12 weeks; Daily Examen participants did not until 24 weeks (MD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.41, -0.08). MBSR participants demonstrated improvement in HRV at 12 weeks (MD = +3.32 ms; 95% CI: 0.21, 6.44; P = .036). MBSR demonstrated robust improvement in self-reported and objective physical correlates of stress; Stress Proofing and Daily Examen resulted in improvements in self-reported correlates of stress. These brief practices were sustainable and beneficial for United Methodist clergy during the heightened stressors of the COVID pandemic. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04625777.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".