Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for university students: Preference trial for various course durations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) is an accessible and effective treatment option for post-secondary students, but engagement and completion rates are less favourable than in non-student populations in routine care. Studies on students' treatment preferences suggest that a range of options should be offered. Examining students' engagement and outcomes associated with ICBT course options of varying durations can help inform how to optimally deliver ICBT to university students in routine care. University students ( N = 72) were offered a choice of a transdiagnostic ICBT course of three different durations (i.e., ultra-brief with no time locks, brief, or standard-length). The trial examined course preferences, predictors of preferences, treatment outcomes (depression, anxiety, and perceived academic functioning) at post-treatment and 4-month follow-up, as well as treatment engagement and satisfaction across course options. Of the 72 students who started treatment, 32 (44.4 %) chose the brief course, 36 (50.0 %) chose standard-length, and 4 (5.6 %) chose the ultra-brief course. Between-group comparisons focused on the brief and standard-length courses, as uptake was too low for the ultra-brief course. From pre-treatment to post-treatment, clients in both groups experienced large reductions in depression (brief: d = 1.26, 95 % CI [0.84, 1.69]; standard: d = 1.43, 95 % CI [0.88, 1.98]) and anxiety (brief: d = 1.40, 95 % CI [0.96, 1.84]; standard: d = 1.59, 95 % CI [1.03, 2.15]), and small but not significant improvements in perceived academic functioning (brief: d = 0.27, 95 % CI [−0.12, 0.67]; standard: d = 0.44, 95 % CI [−0.07, 0.95]). At 4-month follow-up, improvements in depression and anxiety were maintained and improvements in perceived academic functioning reached significance in both groups, with medium effects found. There were no pre-treatment between-group differences in demographic or clinical characteristics and treatment satisfaction was comparable between the groups. The percentage of clients who accessed all lessons was similar in the brief (59.4 %) and standard (55.6 %) courses. As the brief and standard-length course options had similar uptake, outcomes, completion rates, and client satisfaction and similar costs in terms of therapist resources, clinics can confidently offer these options and accommodate student preferences. The low interest in an ultra-brief course prevented evaluation of the outcomes of this course but implies allocating time and resources to offering this option when offered alongside other options is not worthwhile in this particular clinic. Further research could explore whether offering ultra-brief ICBT under different circumstances is of interest and benefit to students. • Preference trial of ICBT for university student in routine care • Students were offered an ultra-brief, brief, or standard-length ICBT course. • Uptake of the ultra-brief course was very low. • No differences found in engagement, satisfaction, outcomes, or therapist costs between the brief and standard-length.
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 | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 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 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
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 ».