MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3083826318 · doi:10.2196/15037

Understanding Problems With Sleep, Sexual Functioning, Energy, and Appetite Among Patients Who Access Transdiagnostic Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety and Depression: Qualitative Exploratory Study

2020· article· en· W3083826318 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael Edmonds, Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos, Kirsten M. Gullickson, Aleiia J. N. Asmundson, Blake F. Dear, Nickolai Titov

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsAnxietyClinical psychologyMoodAnhedoniaWorryPsychologyDepression (economics)CognitionPsychiatryMedicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transdiagnostic internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (T-ICBT) is an effective treatment for anxiety and depression, and nowadays, there is interest in exploring ways to optimize T-ICBT in routine care. T-ICBT programs are designed to address the primary cognitive-affective and behavioral symptoms of anxiety and depression (eg, low mood, worry, anhedonia, and avoidance). Treatment also has the potential to resolve other symptom concerns (eg, sleep disruption, sexual dysfunction, lack of energy, and appetite or weight changes). Having additional information regarding the extent of these concerns and how concerns change over time could prove beneficial for further development of T-ICBT in routine care. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory formative study aims to better understand sleep, sexual functioning, energy, and appetite concerns among T-ICBT clients seeking treatment for depression and anxiety. A qualitative analytic approach was used to identify themes in the symptom concerns reported by patients in the areas of sleep, sexual functioning, energy, and appetite at the time of enrollment. Patient responses to related items from screening measures for anxiety and depression were also examined pre- and posttreatment. METHODS: Patients in routine care who applied for a T-ICBT program for depression and anxiety over a 1-year period were included in this study. As part of the application and screening process, participants completed depression and anxiety symptom measures (ie, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire and 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale). These same measures were administered posttreatment. Subsequently, they were asked if they were experiencing any problems with sleep, sexual activity, energy, or appetite (yes or no). If their response was yes, they were presented with an open-ended comment box that asked them to describe the problems they had experienced in those areas. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients were admitted to T-ICBT during the study period, of which 438 endorsed having some problems with sleep, sexual activity, energy, or appetite. The analysis of open-ended responses indicated that 73.4% (339/462) of patients reported sleep problems (eg, difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep), 69.3% (320/462) of patients reported problems with energy or motivation (eg, tiredness and low motivation), 57.4% (265/462) of patients reported appetite or body weight concerns (eg, changes in appetite and weight loss or gain), and 30.1% (139/462) of patients described concerns with sexual functioning (eg, loss of interest in sex and difficulty with arousal). Item analysis of symptom measures demonstrated that T-ICBT produced improvements in sleep, energy, and appetite in 8 weeks. Sexual dysfunction and weight changes were not represented in the screening measures, so it remains unclear what effect T-ICBT has on these symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Sleep disruption, lack of energy, appetite or weight changes, and sexual dysfunction are common concerns reported by clients enrolled in T-ICBT in routine practice and may deserve greater attention in T-ICBT program development and administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.297
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→