Effectiveness of online versus live multi-family psychoeducation group therapy for children and adolescents with mood or anxiety disorders: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: [1] To highlight the effectiveness of multi-family psychoeducation group therapy (MFPGT) in children with mood or anxiety disorders; [2] to measure change in knowledge and awareness of mood and anxiety disorders in families and children; and [3] to compare the relative effectiveness of online compared to live MFPGT. METHOD: Participants included families of children (12 years or younger) referred with a mood or anxiety disorder to the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Queen's University (n=16) who were on a waitlist to see a psychiatrist. Change was measured through questionnaires for all parents before and after the program. Using SPSS v22, comparisons between the online (n=6) and live (n=10) groups were made using the Mann-Whitney U test and within group comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The online and live education groups showed similar overall improvements in knowledge acquisition and expressed emotion in participating families. However, statistical significance must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Online MFPGT may be an effective way to increase knowledge, provide resources and support and build on skills thus giving individuals more control and confidence when dealing with a mood or anxiety disorder while on a waitlist. MFPGT showed equal efficacy in live and online groups, indicating that the online program has the potential to be a more convenient and accessible program for families. More research is needed with a greater sample size.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".