MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390840440 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/g627d

Proposal to Develop a Clinical Practice Guideline on Emotion Regulation: Final Report

2024· preprint· en· W4390840440 sur OpenAlexaff
J. Christopher Muran, Bethany A. Teachman, Amelia Aldao, Jill Ehrenreich–May, Peter Fonagy, Leslie S. Greenberg, James J. Gross, Jeffrey J. Magnavita, Evan Mayo‐Wilson, Shelley McMain, José A. Soto, Lynn F. Bufka, Raquel Halfond, Howard S. Kurtzman, Jacob S. Marzalik

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Policy Implementation Science
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoYork University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGuidelinePsychological interventionClinical PracticeSet (abstract data type)PsychologyProcess (computing)Empirical researchMedicineNursingComputer sciencePsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Advisory Steering Committee for Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines created a working group to consider the feasibility of, and appropriate methods for, developing an APA clinical practice guideline for interventions that address a transdiagnostic change process, rather than a categorical disorder. Specifically, the working group was asked to determine whether development of a clinical practice guideline focused on emotion regulation was worth pursuing at this time, given the state of the scientific literature, feasibility, and considerations of clinical need and utility.The working group identified a set of goals for a clinical practice guideline based on the idea that if a guideline could mostly achieve these goals, it would be an advance for the field and worth the investment to try to develop a clinical practice guideline based on a transdiagnostic change process or principle.Goals:1) Inform providers, patients and their families, payers and other stakeholders about what the empirical data indicate regarding the efficacy of treatments targeting emotion regulation2) Enhance clinical utility of a clinical practice guideline so we learn more than typical guidelines tell us about:●What works, for whom, and under what circumstances ●What is known about widely-used treatments for which there is not rigorous evidence concerning efficacy ●What is known about change processes or principles underlying the effects of efficacious treatmentsAfter careful consideration of the opportunities and challenges likely to arise in developing a clinical practice guideline on emotion regulation, the working group recommends developing and publishing three review protocols that would lead to a clinical practice guideline with three components:Review 1. Systematic review of the efficacy data leading to recommendations, following the current best practices to reduce bias (and acknowledgement of biases not addressed with this approach). This would include the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, and Setting (PICOTS) questions to assess applicability based on current best practices, and would include the usual review of literature on harms, patient preferences, etc. Note: Only in unusual cases when there is a good reason a priori to think that a given subgroup will have a unique response to a treatment will subgroup analyses, cohort or other studies (that don’t meet best practices to reduce bias) be included. In these cases, careful attention to likely confounds and differences in the analytic approach will need to be considered if these studies are used to guide recommendations.Review 2. Summary of current knowledge (with appropriate caveats about the quality of evidence) for select treatments that were not included in Review 1, when the treatments are both widely used and studies meet stringent, pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria.Review 3. Summary of current knowledge (with appropriate caveats about the quality of evidence) for literature on change processes or principles based on systematic inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine (observational) studies that rigorously try to account for confounding.This report outlines the working group’s process, rationale for a guideline on emotion regulation, review of challenges likely to arise when developing a guideline of this nature and how recognition of these challenges guided the current proposal. Next the proposal and rationale for the three reviews are discussed, along with consideration of how to manage scope and why the working group believes developing this guideline would be very challenging, but ultimately feasible. We close with recommendations for future research in the hopes that the available literature will one day better match the urgent clinical needs.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,304
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,482
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,304
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,858

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,3040,482
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,018
Bibliométrie0,0130,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,007
Communication savante0,0190,019
Science ouverte0,0150,019
Intégrité de la recherche0,0730,048
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0220,022

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,773
Tête enseignante GPT0,764
Écart entre enseignants0,009 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreProtocole

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetHealth Policy Implementation Science→Travaux en français237 207→