The Engagement Challenge: Feasibility and Acceptability of Cognitive Remediation for Teenagers in the Care of YouthProtection Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: History of childhood maltreatment is recognized as an important risk factor for the development of mental health and cognitive difficulties. Cognitive difficulties are associated with impairments in everyday functioning in different domains such as school or work. To date, no study has evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) for teenagers with a history of childhood maltreatment. Objective: The objective was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the CIRCuiTS program for teenagers in youth protection services and to explore the preliminary effect on clinical and neuropsychological outcomes. Methods: Ten participants were first assessed with clinical and neuropsychological measures. They then received a mean of 16 CRT sessions with the CIRCuiTS program adapted for teenagers. The same measures as a baseline were repeated directly after the end of treatment, as well as 3-months and 1-year post-treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to assess feasibility and acceptability, while the preliminary effect of CIRCuiTS was assessed with Reliable Change Indices (RCIs). Results: CIRCuiTS was considered acceptable by both participants and therapists for the attractiveness of the program, its easiness of use and understanding, and its cultural adaptability. However, the feasibility was limited, with only 50% of participants having completed CIRCuiTS. This was mostly explained by contextual factors. RCIs revealed significant improvements in several neuropsychological domains, as well as a decline in other domains. Conclusion: This pilot study highlights challenges that must be addressed to promote engagement with CRT for teenagers in the care of youth protection services.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".