Youths’ and Parents’ Experiences and Perceived Effects of Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anxiety is common among youths in primary care. Face-to-face treatment has been the first choice for clinicians, but during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital psychological interventions have substantially increased. Few studies have examined young people's interest in internet treatment or the attitudes they and their parents have toward it. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate adolescents' and parents' attitudes toward and experiences of internet-based cognitive behavioral anxiety treatment in primary care and its presumptive effects. METHODS: The study used mixed methods, analyzing qualitative data thematically and quantitative data with nonparametric analysis. Participants were 14 adolescents and 14 parents recruited in adolescent primary health care clinics. The adolescents and their parents filled out mental health questionnaires before and after treatment, and were interviewed during ongoing treatment. RESULTS: =8.333; P=.02) and that adolescents' motivation is essential to the treatment outcome (r=0.58; P=.03). The qualitative results show that youths highly value their independence and freedom to organize treatment work on their own terms. The parents expressed uncertainty about their role and how to support their child in treatment. It was important for parents to respect the youths' need for autonomy while also engaging with them in the treatment work. CONCLUSIONS: Internet treatment in primary care is accepted by both youths and their parents, who need clarification about the difference between their role and the therapist's role. Patient motivation should be considered before treatment, and therapists need to continue to develop the virtual alliance. Finally, primary care should be clearer in informing adolescents and their parents about the possibility of internet treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".