The Future of Telehealth‐Based Psychological and Mind–Body Interventions for People With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suffer from relapsing and remitting symptoms of gastrointestinal upset and are at substantial risk of experiencing comorbid mental distress symptoms. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the evidence surrounding mental health telehealth interventions for IBD patients. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsychINFO to systematically identify studies that evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of telehealth-based psychological and mind-body interventions to treat the physical and psychosocial symptoms of IBD patients. Predefined data extraction variables included descriptions of the interventions, participation and dropout rates, and preliminary effectiveness. The data was synthesized using tabular data displayed for quantitative variables and presented as narrative summaries to allow for comparison. RESULTS: Seven studies including 313 participants met our criteria and were included in the review. All studies evaluated distinct interventions. Participation rates ranged 32.4%-75%, and drop-out rates ranged 0%-33%. Most participants reported improvements in their quality of life and mental symptoms, and high satisfaction within their interventions. The authors of all included studies concluded that their interventions were feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to support using telehealth-based psychological and mind-body interventions to support individuals with IBD is limited, but promising. Interventions were positively evaluated, strongly adhered to, and preliminary effectiveness data suggest that these interventions could improve the psychosocial well-being of people with IBD. Future research is warranted to assess the effectiveness of these interventions and to evaluate the barriers to integrating them into IBD care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".