MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617039529 · doi:10.2196/mental.6022

Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to Treat Emotional Distress After Stroke: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

2017· article· en· W2617039529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Simblett, Matthew Yates, Adam P. Wagner, Peter Watson, Fergus Gracey, Howard Ring, Andrew Bateman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College LondonKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsAnxietyMedicineRandomized controlled trialCognitive behavioral therapyDepression (economics)Adverse effectPsychological interventionPhysical therapyRandomizationStroke (engine)DistressClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common complications following stroke. Symptoms could be treatable with psychological therapy, but there is little research on its efficacy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate (1) the acceptability and feasibility of computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) to treat symptoms of depression and anxiety and (2) a trial design for comparing the efficacy of cCBT compared with an active comparator. METHODS: Of the total 134 people screened for symptoms of depression and anxiety following stroke, 28 were cluster randomized in blocks with an allocation ratio 2:1 to cCBT (n=19) or an active comparator of computerized cognitive remediation therapy (cCRT, n=9). Qualitative and quantitative feedback was sought on the acceptability and feasibility of both interventions, alongside measuring levels of depression, anxiety, and activities of daily living before, immediately after, and 3 months post treatment. RESULTS: Both cCBT and cCRT groups were rated as near equally useful (mean = 6.4 vs 6.5, d=0.05), while cCBT was somewhat less relevant (mean = 5.5 vs 6.5, d=0.45) but somewhat easier to use (mean = 7.0 vs 6.3, d=0.31). Participants tolerated randomization and dropout rates were comparable with similar trials, with only 3 participants discontinuing due to potential adverse effects; however, dropout was higher from the cCBT arm (7/19, 37% vs 1/9, 11% for cCRT). The trial design required small alterations and highlighted that future-related studies should control for participants receiving antidepressant medication, which significantly differed between groups (P=.05). Descriptive statistics of the proposed outcome measures and qualitative feedback about the cCBT intervention are reported. CONCLUSIONS: A pragmatic approach is required to deliver computerized interventions to accommodate individual needs. We report a preliminary investigation to inform the development of a full randomized controlled trial for testing the efficacy of computerized interventions for people with long-term neurological conditions such as stroke and conclude that this is a potentially promising way of improving accessibility of psychological support.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207