Internet-delivered Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Depressive Symptoms: An Exploratory Examination of Therapist Behaviours and their Relationship to Outcome and Therapeutic Alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A previous study of therapist-assisted Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) for generalized anxiety (Paxling et al., 2013) identified eight distinct therapist behaviours in ICBT (task reinforcement, self-efficacy shaping, task prompting, alliance bolstering, psychoeducation, empathetic utterances, deadline flexibility, and self-disclosure). It is unknown how generalizable these behaviours are across ICBT programs. AIMS: We systematically examined the frequency of these eight therapist behaviours and additional newly identified behaviours in e-mails sent to patients during the course of ICBT for depressive symptoms. We also conducted exploratory analyses to examine relationships between therapist behaviours, symptom improvement, and therapeutic alliance. METHOD: Data was obtained from a previously published open trial (Hadjistavropoulos et al., 2014). A total of 1013 e-mails sent from therapists (n = 24) to patients (n = 41) during ICBT for depressive symptoms were analyzed. Therapist behaviours were correlated with symptom change scores and ratings of therapeutic alliance at mid- and post-treatment. RESULTS: Therapist behaviours described by Paxling et al. were reliably identified in the e-mails using qualitative content analysis; the frequencies of these behaviours differed, however, from the Paxling et al. study and three additional therapist behaviours were identified (administrative statements, questionnaire feedback, asking clarifying questions). Several therapist behaviours (e.g. administrative statements, task prompting) were associated with lower symptom improvement at post-treatment. Questionnaire feedback and task reinforcement were associated with higher patient ratings of therapeutic alliance. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides partial support for the generalizability of therapist-assistance across ICBT programs. Experimental research is needed to examine the impact of varying therapist-assistance on patient outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".