Development of a cognitive behavioural therapy‐based guided self‐help intervention for adults with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence for cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) in treating mental health, its use, thus far, has been limited for people with intellectual disabilities. This study describes a CBT-based guided self-help (CBT-GSH) manual for individuals with intellectual disability, and focus groups explore the views of clinicians, therapists, support staff and managers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using a qualitative methodology, an expert team adapted the manual. Focus groups provided feedback, followed by thematic content analysis for modifications. RESULTS: Participants supported using the manual, with varying views about the delivery. Quality of relationships and competence of the administrator determined the best person to deliver the treatment. Heterogeneity in the intellectual disability population was a challenge to delivering manual-based interventions. Participants made suggestions about language and organization. CONCLUSIONS: Amendments were made to the manual in line with expert feedback. An evaluation is warranted to test for feasibility, delivery, acceptability and efficacy.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".