Internalizing symptoms impede adolescents’ ability to transition from in-person to online mental health services during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Online mental health services were previously found to be effective in many studies. However, this method was not generally used in Israel. By the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic erupted, forcing mental health services to transition to online meetings to maintain the standard of care. In this cross-sectional study, we investigated the attitudes of adolescent patients toward this involuntary new mode of care. METHODS: Forty-four adolescents (mean age 14.62 ± 2.12 years, 54.5% females) and 40 of their primary caregivers completed a battery of questionnaires that included the telemedicine satisfaction questionnaire, session evaluation questionnaire, working alliance inventory, and pediatric symptom checklist. RESULTS: Both adolescents and their caregivers reported a reasonable experience with the online medium and a feeling that the meetings were overall powerful, helpful, and comfortable as demonstrated by medium to high scores on the telemedicine satisfaction questionnaire and session evaluation questionnaire questionnaires. A therapeutic alliance was generally maintained according to working alliance inventory scores. However, working alliance inventory scores were negatively correlated with higher levels of internalizing symptoms and parental stress. DISCUSSION: Our findings point to the possibility that anxious/depressed adolescents will have greater difficulties re-establishing therapeutic alliance when transitioned from in-person to online meetings. This may be due to the introduction of an "invisible" third party to the therapeutic setting-the computer. Psychologists and psychiatrists should be aware of these difficulties and respond adequately to maintain the standard of care.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".