MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137713289 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2011.10.0198

Dissemination and experience with cognitive processing therapy

2012· review· en· W2137713289 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen M. Chard, Elizabeth G. Ricksecker, Ellen T. Healy, Bradley E. Karlin, Patricia A. Resick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive processing therapyVeterans AffairsCognitionCognitive therapyMental healthInterpersonal communicationMedicineRandomized controlled trialDisseminationHealth carePsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines suggest that cognitive behavioral therapies are recommended for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). One of these treatments, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), is an evidence-based treatment that has been shown to be effective at treating combat, assault, and interpersonal violence trauma in randomized controlled trials. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health Services has implemented an initiative to disseminate CPT as part of a broad effort to make evidence-based psychotherapies widely available throughout the VA healthcare system. This article provides an overview of CPT and reviews the efficacy and program evaluation data supporting its use in a variety of settings. In addition, we report on survey data from individuals who have participated in the VA initiative and on outcome data from patients treated by rollout-trained therapists. Our data suggest that many clinicians trained in the rollout show good adoption of the CPT model and demonstrate solid improvements in their patients' PTSD and depressive symptomotology. Finally, we offer recommendations for using CPT in clinical settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.301
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations135
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and DevelopmentSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207