Clients’ Experiences With Internet-Based Psychological Treatments for Mental Disorders: Protocol for a Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the rise of internet-based treatments as an effective therapeutic tool for psychological disorders, it is necessary to carry out research that examines clients' experiences with this type of intervention. The qualitative methodology has been found to be useful for analyzing clients' perceptions in terms of facilitators and barriers, acceptability, and negative effects of internet-based treatments. However, a lack of integration of these primary studies has prevented their findings from being applied to new research and in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the protocol for a metasynthesis of qualitative studies exploring the experiences of clients who underwent an internet-based treatment. METHODS: Elliot and Timulak's metasynthesis approach will be used to review and synthesize qualitative studies related to client experiences in terms of the barriers and facilitators they perceived when undergoing internet-based treatment. For each search string, the features in the Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type (SPIDER) tool will be considered. Electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) will be searched. Two independent reviewers will analyze the material in order to determine whether the eligibility criteria are fulfilled. Findings will make it possible to create a hierarchy of domains in terms of their relevance across all the primary studies. The data obtained from primary studies will be cross-analyzed using descriptive and interpretative procedures. RESULTS: The search strategy is currently being conducted. First results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: We will develop conceptual framework of the barriers and facilitators perceived by clients and propose their implications and recommendations for clinical practice, research, and training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018079894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=79894 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73C6OtlS7). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/9722.
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 | 0.135 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".