Randomized controlled trial of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy comparing standard weekly versus optional weekly therapist support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) is effective for treating anxiety and depression. The relative benefits of offering standard weekly compared to optional weekly therapist support in conjunction with ICBT within routine care has not been examined. Patients seeking ICBT for depression and or anxiety in routine care were randomized to standard (n=92) or optional (n=88) weekly support. The optional approach resulted in therapists receiving half as many messages from (1.70 vs. 3.96) and sending half as many messages to patients (3.62 vs. 7.29). Optional Support was associated with lower completion rates (56.6% versus 82.4%), but, similar to Standard Support, resulted in large reductions on the GAD-7 (within Cohen's d≥1.08; avg. reduction ≥47%) and PHQ-9 (within Cohen's d≥0.82; avg. reduction ≥43%) at post-treatment and 3-month follow-up. Optional weekly support appears clinically effective and acceptable for many patients and may reduce costs, but safety requires monitoring given lower completion rates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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.
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".