MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958558226 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6584596

Cognitive behavioural therapy self-help intervention preferences among informal caregivers of adults with chronic kidney disease: an online cross-sectional survey

2023· other· en· W6958558226 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Mental healthAnxietySocial supportWorkbookDepression (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Informal caregivers (i.e. family and friends) provide essential support to people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Many informal caregivers experience mental health problems such as anxiety and depression due to the caregiving role, and commonly have unmet psychological support needs. One potential solution is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-help interventions that are less reliant on extensive involvement of healthcare professionals, which may increase access. Within the intervention development phase of the MRC framework, the study’s primary objective was to examine informal caregivers’ self-help intervention preferences (e.g. delivery format, content). Secondary objectives were to describe the informal caregiver’s situation (e.g. type of care activities) and mental health (symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress). Methods An online cross-sectional survey conducted in the United Kingdom. Informal caregivers of adults living with CKD were recruited via social media, websites, newsletters, magazine articles, a podcast episode, and paid Facebook advertisements. The survey examined: informal caregiver characteristics; care recipient characteristics; self-help intervention preferences; and informal caregiver’s mental health using the DASS-21. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Sixty-five informal caregivers participated. The majority (85%) were female, caring for a male (77%) spouse/partner (74%). Responses indicated 58% of informal caregivers were experiencing at least mild depression. In total, 48% indicated they were likely to use a CBT self-help intervention, preferring an intervention provided via internet (e.g. website) (64%), workbook (56%), or individually in-person (54%). Regarding content, interventions should cover a wide range of topics including living with CKD, support services, informal caregiver’s physical health, and diet. Overall, 48% reported a preference for a supported intervention, with support delivered in-person or via email by a trained professional at a community organisation. Conclusions Results suggest CBT self-help interventions may be an acceptable way to provide psychological support to informal caregivers, however the study is limited by the small sample size. A wide range of intervention preferences were identified indicating a need to tailor intervention content and delivery to enhance acceptability and engagement. Results will inform development of a CBT self-help intervention for informal caregivers of people with CKD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology→French-language works237,207→