Mindfulness-Based Self-Management Program Using a Mobile App for Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension: Single-Arm Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions have been applied across various chronic illnesses, but no tailored program exists for individuals with pulmonary hypertension (PH). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the feasibility of a mindfulness-based self-management program for patients with PH, delivered online to accommodate their limited mobility. METHODS: A single-arm pre-post study was conducted using an eight-session, weekly videoconference program incorporating PH self-management education and elements of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. A mobile application linked to an Apple Watch was used to support symptom monitoring and mindfulness awareness. Outcomes included PH-related symptoms; quality of life (emPHasis-10); depression (PHQ-9); anxiety (GAD-7); resilience (CD-RISC); and loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale-short version). Assessments occurred at baseline, week 4, and program completion. Exit interviews explored perceived changes and experiences. RESULTS: Twelve participants (mean age 41.8, SD 10.5 years; range 26-56 years) were enrolled, and nine completed the program (75% retention). Participants valued the online format and Apple Watch integration, while noting a need for optional on-demand sessions. Qualitative analysis identified themes such as increased self-awareness, use of meditation for pain management, and enhanced self-compassion. Quantitative analysis showed significant changes across three time points (baseline, week 4, week 8) for emPHasis-10 (χ²₂=9.742; P = .008) and CD-RISC (χ²₂=7.267; P = .03). Trends toward change were observed for PHQ-9 (χ²₂=4.750; P = .09) and GAD-7 (χ²₂=5.067; P = .08), but week-12 data were limited (n=5). No significant changes in loneliness were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The program appeared to support patients with PH in managing symptoms and emotions and suggested potential improvements in quality of life. These preliminary findings warrant evaluation in a future randomized controlled trial. CLINICALTRIAL: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000044075; https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000050319.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".