EPA-0917 - Multifamily psychoeducation groups: comparing email psychoeducation to live groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mood and anxiety disorders are common in youth and are associated with reduced quality of life and high costs. Access to effective treatment is limited due to long waitlists, high costs and perceived social stigma. Given the high prevalence and treatment barriers, there is a need for brief, inexpensive and effective interventions. Psychoeducational interventions are inexpensive, easily administered and more accessible than conventional interventions. There is some evidence that these are effective in treating or preventing mental disorders. To compare knowledge acquired by participants via email or live psychoeducation groups, to measure symptom change and to compare effectiveness of each modality. Psychoeducation (live or via email) in multifamily groups will be offered. Forty participants in each group will be enrolled. There will be six 40-minute sessions. Primary outcome measures are: change in parental knowledge about the child's disorder and level of expressed emotion in the parent-child relationship. Measures are Understanding of Mood Disorders Questionnaire and Expressed Emotion Adjective Checklist. To measure changes in symptoms the Children's Depression Inventory and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children will be used. Questionnaires will be administered before, after and at 4 months. Data entered in Excel format. ANOVA used to compare effectiveness of group versus email psychoeducation. Both methods equally effective in delivering psychoeducation. Ontario has long waitlists for youth with mood and anxiety disorders. Psychoeducation is effective in increasing understanding of illness, improving symptoms and problem-solving skills of the family. Multifamily group versus email psychoeducation will facilitate access.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.004 |
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".