MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310798744 · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100595

Transdiagnostic internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy: Feasibility of a motivational interviewing resource

2022· article· en· W4310798744 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Interventions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Health, Saskatchewan
KeywordsMotivational interviewingResource (disambiguation)AnxietyPsychologyMedicineInterviewDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyPsychological interventionPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite growing evidence for the effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT), engagement and treatment outcomes are lower for some clients. Online motivational interviewing (MI) has been investigated prior to offering ICBT to facilitate engagement and outcomes, but only appears to improve engagement. Purpose: This feasibility study investigated the potential use of a brief MI resource offered during ICBT rather than before, by examining: (1) use of the resource; (2) client and treatment variables associated with use; (3) whether use of the resource was associated with improved engagement and outcomes; and (4) how those who used the resource evaluated it. Method: This study used data collected from 763 clients enrolled in an ICBT course. Symptoms related to depression, anxiety and disability were assessed at pre- and post-treatment. The website tracked treatment engagement. Clients completed an MI resource evaluation measure at post-treatment. Results: Approximately 15% of clients used the resource. Clients who were older, had higher education, scored in the clinical range on depression, and scored lower on anxiety at pre-treatment were more likely to use the resource. Those who reported using the resource had higher engagement (i.e., more lessons and messages) in ICBT, but lower improvement in disability post-treatment. Positive feedback on the MI resource outweighed negative feedback, with 94 % of clients identifying a positive aspect of the resource and 66 % of clients reporting making changes in response to the resource. Overall, the MI resource appears to be used by and perceived as beneficial by a small portion of clients who complete ICBT. The study provides insight into use of the resource and directions for future research related to MI and ICBT.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.267 · 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