Strategies included in cognitive behavioral therapy programs to treat internalized disorders: a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aimed to identify the strategies used in programs based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to prevent and treat symptoms of anxiety, depression, and internalized behaviors of children and adolescents. Based on an online search (ERIC, PsycInfo, Virtuose UQAM, and Google Scholar), 61 studies describing different cognitive behavioral programs were selected. Results showed that 40 strategies were implemented in at least one program. However, none of the strategies were systematically present in all programs, and only few were reported in more than 50% of the studies. Cognitive restructuring and problem-solving were the most popular strategies to treat depressive symptoms, whereas anxiety programs also generally included relaxation and exposure. Furthermore, six strategies were identified in a single anxiety program, whereas nine strategies were implemented in only one depression program. These results suggest that in anxiety and depression programs designed for children and adolescents, the label "CBT" encompasses a wide variety of programs with only few similar strategies. Such findings highlight the need to define a common basis for CBT programs, in order to better reflect CBT theory and to identify the effectiveness of the strategies included in these programs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it