Preference trial of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy comparing standard weekly versus optional weekly therapist support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence from research trials suggests that Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) produces similar symptom improvements whether patients receive weekly therapist support (standard support) or therapist support only when requested (optional support). It remains unknown, however, how many patients receiving ICBT as part of routine clinical care would prefer optional support compared to standard support and how outcomes compare when patients select their preferred treatment option. In this uncontrolled trial, we investigated patient preference and outcomes for standard versus optional support among patients with depression and or anxiety who were offered an 8-week transdiagnostic ICBT intervention in routine care. Of 401 patients accepted for ICBT, 22% selected optional support and 78% selected standard support. At assessment, patients who selected optional support had lower symptoms of anxiety and panic than patients who selected standard support. At post-treatment, both groups achieved similar large improvements in symptoms of anxiety and depression, with improvements sustained at 3-month follow-up. Patients receiving optional support sent and received fewer messages compared to patients receiving standard support. This study demonstrates the potential of optional therapist support to meet the needs and preferences of patients and to also reduce therapist costs in routine care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 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".