A nonrandomised trial of a five-week brief mindfulness-based intervention for emerging adults experiencing anxious and depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We tested the effectiveness of a brief mindfulness-based intervention (bMBI) for emerging adults (EAs) experiencing anxious and depressive symptoms. Specifically, we examined: (1) whether there are improvements in mental health outcomes among participants at post-intervention and in a one-month follow-up, and (2) whether initial health variables predict overall mental health improvement over the intervention.Method Forty-five undergraduate students who were experiencing mood and/or anxiety symptoms participated in a five-session, in-person mindfulness group. Data on anxious symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire–9), mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale), perceived stress (10-item Perceived Stress Scale), and self-compassion (12-item Self-Compassion Scale – Short Form) were collected at baseline, immediately prior to the beginning of the intervention, at the beginning of session three, immediately following the intervention and at one-month follow-up.Results The preliminary analysis indicated that this five-session bMBI for EAs was: (1) effective in decreasing psychological distress and increasing well-being, with improvements continuing at the follow-up; and (2) that pre-bMBI self-compassion moderated anxious, depressive and well-being scores at mid-bMBI, post-bMBI, and one-month follow-up.Discussion The current findings lend support for an effective intervention for EAs and provide direction for increased services and preventative strategies for EAs in post-secondary education. This study is one of the few studies on such therapeutic interventions for mood and anxiety within EA research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".