Group Psychological Treatment Preferences of Individuals Living With Chronic Disease: Brief Report of a Saskatchewan-Based Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that individuals with chronic diseases comorbid with psychological distress experience worse clinical outcomes than those without psychological distress, treatment of the psychological sequalae that accompanies chronic diseases is of utmost importance. Thus, the present study aimed to examine group treatment preferences among adults living with chronic disease in Saskatchewan, Canada. An online survey regarding group treatment preferences was administered to 207 participants living with chronic disease comorbid with psychological distress. The most often reported treatment scenario was virtual sessions (45%) lasting 1 h (51%) and occurring every other week (45%) in the evening (63%) for 3 to4 months (40%). Preferences included a medium group (48%), a relatively closed group nature (ie, only occasional new members; 44%), and group leadership including at least 1 professional living with chronic disease (54%). Future-oriented (81%), supportive (83%), skill-based (95%), and group discussions (78%) were desired treatment characteristics among participants. Survey results showed clear preferences on treatment content and session logistics. Slight variations exist by gender and age, but a consensus can be identified and act as a preliminary treatment plan. This study contributes to the body of literature on psychological treatment preferences for individuals living with chronic disease by outlining the preferred format and composition of groups according to those with lived experience. Group-based psychological treatment for chronic disease patients should account for these preferences to improve its acceptability and usefulness among patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".