Resuming In-person Psychological Treatment in the Era of COVID-19
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Patient-centered research has emerged as a promising model to adequately address the needs and preferences of patient populations with mental disorders. The Scaling Up Maternal Mental healthcare by Increasing access to Treatment (SUMMIT) Trial aims to increase access to psychological treatment and implements a multi-stakeholder perspective to understand the needs/preferences of perinatal populations with symptoms of depression and anxiety. Specifically, this pragmatic, non-inferiority randomized effectiveness trial examines whether Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via telemedicine is as effective as in-person treatment. However, due to COVID-19, the study suspended in-person BA sessions and completely shifted to telemedicine. To ensure BA remains widely accessible, the SUMMIT team strives to resume in-person treatment in the near future.
 Objective: To gain perspectives of key stakeholders on the potential barriers and facilitators for SUMMIT participants to resume in-person BA sessions in a COVID-19 context. 
 Methods: A focus group discussion (1 hour) was conducted via Zoom with N=9 stakeholders, including patient advocates, nurses, clinicians, and researchers. Qualitative data was coded using NVivo and content analysis was performed to quantify frequently endorsed themes.
 Results: The majority of stakeholders considered resuming in-person BA sessions to be a challenge amidst COVID-19, with more barriers than facilitators mentioned overall. Most commonly endorsed barriers that participants may face when attending in-person treatment included arranging childcare (n=8; 89%) and discomfort/fear of coming to the hospital (n=6; 67%). The most widely endorsed facilitators for resuming in-person treatment during COVID-19 were clearly communicating hospital and transportation safety precautions to participants (n=7; 78%) and conducting in-person sessions at an off-site location (n=6; 67%).
 Conclusion: This study identified critical facilitators of resuming in-person BA sessions that can inform: (1) how to resume in-person BA sessions and (2) the development and implementation of strategies to make BA more patient-centered for perinatal populations during COVID-19.
 Objective: To gain perspectives of key stakeholders on the potential barriers and facilitators for SUMMIT participants to resume in-person BA sessions in a COVID-19 context. 
 Methods: A focus group discussion (1 hour) was conducted via Zoom with N=9 stakeholders, including patient advocates, nurses, clinicians, and researchers. Qualitative data was coded using NVivo and a content analysis was performed to quantify frequently endorsed themes.
 Results: The majority of stakeholders considered resuming in-person BA sessions to be a challenge amidst COVID-19, with more barriers than facilitators mentioned overall. Most commonly endorsed barriers that participants may face when attending in-person treatment included arranging childcare (n=8; 89%) and discomfort/fear of coming to the hospital (n=6; 67%). The most widely endorsed facilitators for resuming in-person treatment during COVID-19 were clearly communicating hospital and transportation safety precautions to participants (n=7; 78%) and conducting in-person sessions at an off-site location (n=6; 67%).
 Conclusion: This study identified critical facilitators of resuming in-person BA sessions that can inform: (1) how to resume in-person BA sessions and (2) the development and implementation of strategies to make BA more patient-centered for perinatal populations during COVID-19.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».