Online psychosocial intervention for persons with spinal cord injury: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delivery of psychosocial interventions via the Internet has the potential to overcome barriers and increase access; however, effectiveness is yet to be established among those with spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of Internet-based psychosocial interventions on the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and pain amongst those with SCI. The databases Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE were used to locate studies published between 1990 and December 2020. A study was included if (1) the study involved the application of an online psychosocial intervention; (2) adults with SCI; and (3) reported outcomes on depression and/or anxiety. From each study, participant characteristics and study details were extracted. A standardized mean difference (SMD) ± standard error and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each outcome of interest and the results were pooled using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: < 0.001) symptoms at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence for the use of internet-based psychosocial interventions to manage anxiety and depression symptoms among those with spinal cord injuries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".