Behavioral activation to prevent depression in at-risk adolescents: A pilot feasibility, acceptability and potential impact trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact of a novel 5-week group Behavioral Activation (BA) prevention program for adolescents at risk of depression. A pilot study with a pre-post design was conducted on one group of adolescents ( N = 9) with depressive symptoms in a high school setting. The nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to determine potential impact of the program on depressive symptomatology, the incidence of depressive diagnoses and behavior change from pretest to posttest. Feasibility and acceptability were established by the active participation, low drop-out rate, and positive comments collected. As for the potential impact of the program, significant pre-post differences suggest improvement in participants who initially presented with subclinical depressive symptoms. Participants enjoyed the activities they were participating in, despite an overall reduction in the number and variety of activities that were possible due to the pandemic lockdown. Also, the participants expressed an improvement in their functioning. The group BA prevention program for at-risk adolescents appears feasible, acceptable, and effective within a school setting. A larger controlled trial is needed to confirm its efficacy and determine the clinical significance of BA as a preventive intervention for adolescent depression.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".