Delivering cognitive behavioural interventions in an internet-based healthcare delivery environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This exploratory qualitative study assessed the feasibility of transitioning three face-to-face, cognitive behavioural interventions for adults with chronic health conditions to online delivery, by examining clinician and clients' satisfaction with intervention training and delivery. Method The interventions adapted for online delivery were: ‘Managing Chronic Disease’, a programme for individuals who were nonadherent to prescribed rehabilitation regimens; ‘Real-World Strategy Training’, an occupation-based intervention for individuals with subjective cognitive decline; and ‘Learning the Ropes’, a memory programme for persons with mild cognitive impairment. Two occupational therapists and one nurse received training in, and then delivered one of the three interventions. Qualitative feedback interviews with participants, and archived video recordings of intervention sessions were analysed thematically. Results Key features of each manualised intervention were evident in the online sessions and perceived by clients as enhancing engagement (for example, peer support and strategy training). Clinicians felt that meeting individually with intervention experts was helpful to problem-solve technical issues and ensure adherence to protocols. Conclusion Three cognitive behavioural interventions transitioned to online delivery were acceptable to older adults and clinicians. A next step would be to complete randomised controlled trials investigating whether the interventions yield equivalent health benefits, using online and face-to-face delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".