Patient perspectives of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for psychosocial issues post spinal cord injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI) report significant symptoms of depression and/or anxiety post-SCI; however, access to mental health services can be limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient perspectives on the acceptability of an 8-week guided Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) course (Chronic Conditions Course) for people with SCI. In particular, we sought to understand patient perceptions of facilitators and barriers of engaging in ICBT and strengths and weaknesses of ICBT program content. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 8 SCI patients after completion of the ICBT course. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and examined by means of thematic analysis by 2 coders. RESULTS: Eight participants (mean age = 53.2 years; males = 50%; paraplegia = 67.5%) were interviewed. Four major themes emerged when examining facilitators to completing the program: accessibility, flexibility, motivation, and guided support. Barriers to completing the program included course timeframe and physical health. Strengths of the course included effective skill development and mental health prioritization. Suggested changes to the course included improved breadth of case stories, development of extra resources, adjusting the course timeframe to account for the SCI, and more support from the guide. CONCLUSIONS: ICBT was overall highlighted as an acceptable method of receiving care for people with SCI. The study provides direction for improving delivery of ICBT to ensure this method of treatment meets the needs of individuals with SCI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".