Posttreatment Attrition and Its Predictors, Attrition Bias, and Treatment Efficacy of the Anxiety Online Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although relatively new, the field of e-mental health is becoming more popular with more attention given to researching its various aspects. However, there are many areas that still need further research, especially identifying attrition predictors at various phases of assessment and treatment delivery. OBJECTIVE: The present study identified the predictors of posttreatment assessment completers based on 24 pre- and posttreatment demographic and personal variables and 1 treatment variable, their impact on attrition bias, and the efficacy of the 5 fully automated self-help anxiety treatment programs for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (PD/A), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: A complex algorithm was used to diagnose participants' mental disorders based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition, Text Revision; DSM-IV-TR). Those who received a primary or secondary diagnosis of 1 of 5 anxiety disorders were offered an online 12-week disorder-specific treatment program. A total of 3199 individuals did not formally drop out of the 12-week treatment cycle, whereas 142 individuals formally dropped out. However, only 347 participants who completed their treatment cycle also completed the posttreatment assessment measures. Based on these measures, predictors of attrition were identified and attrition bias was examined. The efficacy of the 5 treatment programs was assessed based on anxiety-specific severity scores and 5 additional treatment outcome measures. RESULTS: On average, completers of posttreatment assessment measures were more likely to be seeking self-help online programs; have heard about the program from traditional media or from family and friends; were receiving mental health assistance; were more likely to learn best by reading, hearing and doing; had a lower pretreatment Kessler-6 total score; and were older in age. Predicted probabilities resulting from these attrition variables displayed no significant attrition bias using Heckman's method and thus allowing for the use of completer analysis. Six treatment outcome measures (Kessler-6 total score, number of diagnosed disorders, self-confidence in managing mental health issues, quality of life, and the corresponding pre- and posttreatment severity for each program-specific anxiety disorder and for major depressive episode) were used to assess the efficacy of the 5 anxiety treatment programs. Repeated measures MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate time effect for all treatment outcome measures for each treatment program. Follow-up repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant improvements on all 6 treatment outcome measures for GAD and PTSD, 5 treatment outcome measures were significant for SAD and PD/A, and 4 treatment outcome measures were significant for OCD. CONCLUSIONS: Results identified predictors of posttreatment assessment completers and provided further support for the efficacy of self-help online treatment programs for the 5 anxiety disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN121611000704998; http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?ID=336143 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/618r3wvOG).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,052 | 0,114 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».