A first remotely-delivered guided brief intervention to reduce intrusive memories of psychological trauma for healthcare staff working during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing the mental health needs of healthcare staff exposed to psychologically traumatic events at work during the COVID-19 pandemic is a pressing global priority. We need to swiftly develop interventions to target the psychological consequences (e.g., persistent intrusive memories of trauma). Interventions for healthcare staff must be brief, flexible, fitted around the reality and demands of working life under the pandemic, and repeatable during ongoing/further trauma exposure. Intervention delivery during the pandemic should be remote to mitigate risk of infection; e.g., here using a blend of digitalized self-administered materials (e.g., video instructions) and guided (remote) support from a researcher. This parallel groups, two-arm, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with healthcare staff working during the COVID-19 pandemic is the first evaluation of whether a digitalized form of a brief cognitive task intervention, which is remotely-delivered (guided), reduces intrusive memories. Healthcare staff who experience intrusive memories of work-related traumatic event(s) during the COVID-19 pandemic (≥2 in the week before inclusion) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either the cognitive task intervention or an active (attention placebo) control, and followed up at 1-week, 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months post-intervention. The primary outcome will be the number of intrusive memories reported during Week 5; secondary and other outcomes include the number of intrusive memories reported during Week 1, and other intrusive symptoms. Findings will inform further development and dissemination of a brief cognitive task intervention to target intrusive memories.
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 | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.014 |
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".