Relative Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Administered by Videoconference for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Six-Month Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, only one study was published on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individual therapy via videoconference (Germain, Marchand, Bouchard, Drouin, & Guay, 2009 Germain, V., Marchand, A., Bouchard, S., Drouin, M. S. and Guay, S. 2009. Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy administered by videoconference for posttraumatic stress disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 38: 42–53. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]); however, it only assessed the posttreatment effect. This study presents the follow-up of Germain et al.'s (2009 Germain, V., Marchand, A., Bouchard, S., Drouin, M. S. and Guay, S. 2009. Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy administered by videoconference for posttraumatic stress disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 38: 42–53. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) study. The main goal was to compare the effectiveness after six months of CBT for PTSD either face-to-face (n = 24) or by videoconference (n = 12). Each participant received CBT for 16 to 25 weeks and completed various questionnaires before and after treatment and at a six-month follow-up. The two treatments had equivalent levels of symptom reduction (Modified PTSD Symptom Scale: η2 < 0.01, p > .05) and proportion of patients with a clinically significant change in symptoms (42% for face-to-face vs. 38% for videoconferencing, p > .05). Thus, CBT for PTSD via videoconference seems to be a viable alternative when adequate face-to-face treatments are less available.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".