MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310963943 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.202100677

Identifying Core Competencies for Remote Delivery of Psychological Interventions: A Rapid Review

2022· review· en· W4310963943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gloria A. Pedersen, Kendall Pfeffer, Adam D. Brown, Kenneth Carswell, Ann Willhoite, Alison Schafer, Brandon A. Kohrt

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsycINFOMedical educationIdentification (biology)MedicineConfidentialityIntervention (counseling)MEDLINENursingInterpersonal communicationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid shift toward remote delivery of psychological interventions and transition to voice-only and video communication platforms. However, agreement is lacking on key competencies that are aligned with equitable approaches for standardized training and supervision of remote psychological intervention delivery. A rapid review was conducted to identify and describe competencies that could inform best practices of remote services delivery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Scopus, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for literature published in English (2015-2021) on competencies for synchronous, remote psychological interventions that can be measured through observation. RESULTS: Of 135 articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria. Studies targeted populations in high-income countries (11 in the United States and Canada, one in Saudi Arabia) and focused on specialist practitioners, professionals, or trainees in professional or prelicensure programs working with adult populations. Ten skill categories were identified: emergency and safety protocols for remote services, facilitating communication over remote platforms, remote consent procedures, technological literacy, practitioner-client identification for remote services, confidentiality during remote services, communication skills during remote services, engagement and interpersonal skills for remote services, establishing professional boundaries during remote services, and encouraging continuity of care during remote services. CONCLUSIONS: These 10 skills domains can offer a foundation for refinement of discrete, individual-level competencies that can be aligned with global initiatives promoting use of observational competency assessment during training and supervision programs for psychological interventions. More research is needed on identification of and agreement on remote competencies and on their evaluation.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0180.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207