Online Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Life Skills Program for Depression: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health problem with significant personal and social consequences. Studies have suggested that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression and anxiety when delivered one-to-one by an expert practitioner, but access to this talking therapy is often limited, and waiting lists can be long. However, a range of low-intensity interventions that can increase access to services are available including guided CBT self-help materials delivered via books, classes, and online packages. OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to pilot a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an online CBT-based life skills course with community-based individuals experiencing depression. METHODS: Individuals with symptoms of depression were recruited directly from the community via newspaper advertisements. Participants were remotely randomized to receive either immediate access (IA) or delayed access (DA) to a research version of the Living Life to the Full online CBT-based life skills package (3rd edition) with telephone support provided by nonspecialist, charity-based workers while they used the online intervention. The primary end point was at 3 months postrandomization, at which point, the DA group were offered the intervention. Levels of depression, anxiety, social functioning, and satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: There were effective recruitment, randomization, and uptake, with 19 IA and 17 DA control participants entering the pilot study via newspaper advertisements and 13 of the 19 participants taking up the intervention. Overall, 72% (26/36) were not currently under the care of their general practitioner. The online package was acceptable to participants; the mean satisfaction score on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire was 21 out of 32 (SD 8.89). At 3 months, data collection was achieved from 78% (28/36) of the participants. The efficacy and retention data were used for a power calculation indicating that 72 participants in total will be required for a future substantive RCT. CONCLUSIONS: The research design successfully tested the recruitment, data collection, and intervention delivery. The pilot study has provided data for the required sample size for the full RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12890709; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12890709. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-016-1336-y.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".