MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4407397163 · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2025.100809

Evaluation of additional resources and stories within therapist-assisted internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for alcohol misuse

2025· article· en· W4407397163 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternet Interventions · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueDigital Mental Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensYork UniversityUniversity of Regina
Organismes subventionnairesSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationMinistry of Health, SaskatchewanUniversity of Regina
Mots-clésThe InternetCognitionPsychologyCognitive behaviour therapyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Additional resources and stories are sometimes incorporated into Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) for alcohol misuse to enhance treatment. Little is known, however, about how patients use and evaluate additional resources and stories, and how use and evaluation of additional resources and stories relates to satisfaction and outcomes. We examined patient use and evaluation of 8 additional resources and 8 stories among 121 patients who endorsed significant alcohol misuse and were enrolled in a 6-lesson ICBT course for alcohol misuse enhanced with additional resources and stories. The additional resources addressed anger, assertiveness and communication, cannabis use, cognitive coping, grief, PTSD, sleep, and worry. Stories varied by gender, ethnicity, occupation, and severity of alcohol problems. Primary drinking outcomes included the Timeline Follow-Back (TLFB) and heavy drinking days (HDD). Diverse secondary outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, cravings, anger, satisfaction) were also assessed. Large within-group effects for TLFB and HDD were found. Large effects were also observed for depression and cravings, with high treatment satisfaction. 63 % of patients accessed at least one resource ( M = 2.27 resources), with anger (35 %), cognitive coping (35 %), sleep (34 %) and worry (30 %) being the most used. When accessed, patients found resources informative and/or helpful to varying degrees (25–67 %). In terms of stories, 85 % of patients indicated they read the stories, and 89 % of those found them worthwhile; 65 % felt less alone and 55 % found they gave them skills to improve wellbeing. Increased use and positive ratings of additional resources were not significantly related to outcomes or satisfaction. However, positive ratings of stories were associated with confidence in managing symptoms and an interest in future treatment. Additionally, reading stories was associated with larger improvements on several secondary outcomes, including PTSD, anger, insomnia, and work and social adjustment. The findings suggest that adding resources and stories to ICBT is acceptable and worthwhile. A significant number of patients reviewed these materials and found them informative and/or helpful, which suggests it is likely valuable to retain these resources for those in need. Reading stories and positive ratings of stories, rather than use and positive ratings of additional resources, was associated with increased satisfaction and some larger improvements on secondary outcomes. Further research is warranted to identify strategies that will more effectively engage patients with additional resources tailored to their specific needs. • Additional resources and stories were examined in an ICBT course for alcohol misuse. • Resources on anger, cognitive coping, sleep, and worry were used the most. • Most patients read the stories and were satisfied with them. • Large improvements in alcohol use, depression, and cravings. • Adding treatment components was not detrimental to outcomes.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,741
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,159
Tête enseignante GPT0,470
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · 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