Telephone-Administered Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Clients with Depressive Symptoms in An Employee Assistance Program: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the clinical and work productivity effects of a brief intervention using telephone-administered cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for clients with depressive symptoms attending an employee assistance program (EAP). METHODS: Self-referred clients attending the PPC Canada EAP with clinically relevant depressive symptoms at initial assessment were offered an 8-session telephone-administered CBT program. Outcomes before and after intervention were assessed with the 9-item Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and clinician ratings of work absence and performance impairment. RESULTS: Fifty clients were referred to the pilot program; 39 participated and 31 completed the telephone CBT program. Among program participants, there was significant improvement in PHQ-9 and GAF scores. There was also a significant reduction in performance impairment but not work absence. Anecdotal reports indicated high satisfaction ratings among participants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study, although limited by the absence of a comparison or control group, suggest that a brief telephone-administered CBT program can improve depressive symptomatology, work productivity, and general function in depressed clients attending an EAP. Further controlled studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".