MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283266356 · doi:10.2196/35496

Conceptual Invariance, Trajectories, and Outcome Associations of Working Alliance in Unguided and Guided Internet-Based Psychological Interventions: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4283266356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaochen Luo, Matteo Bugatti, Lucero Molina, Jacqueline L. Tilley, Brittain Mahaffey, Adam Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Space Biomedical Research InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionAlliancePsychologyIbisClinical psychologyWorryPhysical therapyAnxietyPsychotherapistPsychiatryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of working alliance remains unclear for many forms of internet-based interventions (IBIs), a set of effective psychotherapy alternatives that do not require synchronous interactions between patients and therapists. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the conceptual invariance, trajectories, and outcome associations of working alliance across an unguided IBI and guided IBIs that incorporated clinician support through asynchronous text messaging or video messaging. METHODS: Adults with high education attainment (n=145) with subclinical levels of anxiety, stress, or depressive symptoms were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment conditions for 7 weeks. All participants received treatments from MyCompass, an unguided IBI using cognitive behavior therapy. Participants in condition 2 and 3 received supplemental, asynchronous clinician support through text and video, respectively. Working alliance with the IBIs was measured weekly using select items from the 12-item version of the Agnew Relationship Measure. Symptom and functional outcomes were assessed at baseline, at the end of treatment, and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: Working alliance with the IBIs was conceptually invariant across the 3 conditions. Working alliance followed a quadratic pattern of change over time for all conditions and declined significantly only in the text-support condition. After controlling for baseline symptoms, higher baseline levels of working alliance predicted less depression and less functional impairment at follow-up, whereas faster increases in working alliance predicted less worry at the end of treatment and at follow-up, all of which only occurred in the video-support condition. CONCLUSIONS: Working alliance with the IBIs was generally established in the initial sessions. Although working alliance is conceptually invariant across IBIs with or without clinician support, the associations between working alliance and treatment outcomes among IBIs may differ depending on clinician involvement and the modalities of support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05122429; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05122429.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental Health→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→