MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971381309 · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2019.100278

Negative effects associated with internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy: An analysis of client emails

2019· article· en· W2971381309 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Interventions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationHealth Research FoundationUniversity of Regina
KeywordsAnxietyPsychologyDistressClinical psychologyAllianceCognitionDepression (economics)MedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) is an efficacious form of treatment for anxiety and depression, yet it is still possible for clients to experience negative effects associated with treatment. In the ICBT literature, the term negative effects is broadly used to refer to all potentially adverse or unwanted events or experiences that are perceived as undesirable by the client and may or may not be associated with long-term symptoms or distress. Previous ICBT studies have asked clients to retrospectively describe negative effects at post-treatment; however, no research has examined the content of clients' emails to their therapist to see whether clients are reporting negative effects as they arise. In the current study, 96 clients (80 completers; 16 non-completers) were randomly selected from a published ICBT trial and directed content analysis was used to examine client emails for mention of negative effects. In addition, correlational analyses were used to examine the relationship between negative effects and: 1) demographic characteristics; 2) treatment engagement; 3) treatment satisfaction; 4) working alliance; and 5) symptom outcomes among completers. The results indicated that 61.5% of clients experienced at least one negative effect during treatment, although total number of negative effects was not significantly correlated with client demographic characteristics, lessons completed, working alliance, treatment satisfaction, or symptom outcomes. Among completers, technical difficulties, implementation problems, and negative emotional states were the most commonly reported negative effects, whereas dropout was the most commonly reported negative effect by non-completers. Negative effects that have been identified in previous research, such as symptom deterioration, novel symptoms, and severe adverse events, were not identified in client emails. The high incidence of negative effects in the current study suggests there may be value in systematically monitoring client emails for negative effects throughout treatment as a supplement to retrospective post-treatment reports. This will give therapists the opportunity to intervene as negative effects occur and potentially mitigate any impact they have on treatment outcomes. Future research, both qualitative and quantitative, is needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of negative effects associated with ICBT.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it