Perception of Mental Health Care Professionals in Saudi Arabia on Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Observational Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders are common in Saudi Arabia with a 34% lifetime prevalence. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a type of psychotherapy, is an evidence-based intervention for the majority of mental disorders. Although the demand for CBT is increasing, unfortunately, there are few therapists available to meet this demand and the therapy is expensive. Computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) is a new modality that can help fill this gap. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to measure the knowledge of cCBT among mental health care professionals in Saudi Arabia, and to evaluate their attitudes and preferences toward cCBT. METHODS: This quantitative observational cross-sectional study used a convenience sample, selecting mental health care professionals working in the tertiary hospitals of Saudi Arabia. The participants received a self-administered electronic questionnaire through data collectors measuring their demographics, knowledge, and attitudes about cCBT, and their beliefs about the efficacy of using computers in therapy. RESULTS: Among the 121 participating mental health care professionals, the mean age was 36.55 years and 60.3% were women. Most of the participants expressed uncertainty and demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding cCBT. However, the majority of participants indicated a positive attitude toward using computers in therapy. Participants agreed with the principles of cCBT, believed in its efficacy, and were generally confident in using computers. Among the notable results, participants having a clinical license and with cCBT experience had more knowledge of cCBT. The overall attitude toward cCBT was not affected by demographic or work-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health care professionals in Saudi Arabia need more education and training regarding cCBT; however, their attitude toward its use and their comfort in using computers in general show great promise. Further research is needed to assess the acceptance of cCBT by patients in Saudi Arabia, in addition to clinical trials measuring its effectiveness in the Saudi population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".