A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Compassion-Focused Therapy on Depression and Alexithymia in Caregivers of Elderly People with Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) on depression and alexithymia in caregivers of Alzheimer’s patients. Methodology: This was a quasi-experimental study using a pretest-posttest-follow-up design with a control group. The sample consisted of 45 caregivers of Alzheimer’s patients in Arak, Iran, selected through purposive sampling. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: MBSR intervention (n=15), CFT intervention (n=15), and control (n=15). Data were collected using the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and analyzed using multivariate repeated measures ANOVA. Findings: Both MBSR and CFT significantly reduced depression and alexithymia scores compared to the control group (P<0.001). However, CFT was more effective in reducing depression, while MBSR showed a stronger effect in decreasing alexithymia. These effects remained stable during the three-month follow-up phase. Conclusion: Both interventions proved beneficial in improving the psychological well-being of caregivers. Nonetheless, the choice of intervention should be aligned with individual emotional and cognitive needs. MBSR appears more suitable for addressing emotional awareness issues (alexithymia), while CFT is better targeted for treating depressive symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".