Cognitive behavioural therapy for depressed youth: predictors of attendance in a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Of the many forms of psychotherapy offered to treat depression in youth, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) has been shown to be efficacious. Nonetheless, a high degree of apparent non-responsiveness, failure to remit post-treatment, and lack of long term benefit are all problematic. Given that regular participation is critical to treatment success, child and family predictors of attendance were researched. METHOD: Twenty-nine depressed Canadian youth (aged 10-17) participated in a youth only or youth plus parent CBT group. Child and parent predictors of attendance were examined. RESULTS: Youth who were younger, less anxious (by maternal report), and had more formally educated parents attended CBT more consistently. Further, mothers who perceived their children's depressive symptoms as more severe, whose children reported more depressive and anxious symptoms, and who reported more life stressors attended more parent sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies key factors influencing youth and parent attendance in group CBT for depressed youth. Addressing these factors at the outset of treatment may decrease attrition in this form of psychotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".