Group therapy via videoconferencing for individuals with early psychosis: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced many mental health professionals to therapy via videoconferencing. Mostly individual teletherapy has been offered and studied, although group therapy is often offered in clinics. In fact, little is known regarding group therapy's acceptability, feasibility, and potential impact when offered via videoconferencing. METHODS: This pilot study offered group cognitive-behavioural therapy for psychosis via videoconferencing to 14 individuals with early psychosis either living in remote areas or confined during the pandemic. RESULTS: The rate of consenting to the study (79%) and actual participation rates were acceptable (18.5 sessions out of 24). Although some technological obstacles were encountered, solutions offered allowed the videoconferencing group to be considered feasible for most participants and therapists. Prepost results on symptoms and self-esteem were comparable to those of other studies using the same group treatment but in-person. Alliance scores seemed similar as well. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are warranted on the efficacy of group therapy via videoconferencing. This pilot study does offer promising results, suggesting that a wider range of people with early psychosis can be reached and benefit from the advantages of receiving an evidence-based group intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".