Acceptability, implementation, and perceived utility of a school‐based cognitive‐behavioral intervention: A qualitative feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how cognitive‐behavioral therapy programs can be best implemented within the school environment is critical for ensuring that preventative mental health efforts reach all children and are most effective. The purpose of this study was to provide a qualitative analysis of students and school‐based facilitators' perspectives of a cognitive‐behavioral school‐based intervention. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate the feasibility of the program, with a focus given to acceptability, implementation, and perceived utility. School‐based facilitators (n = 10) provided data via weekly checklists. At the end of the program, facilitators also completed an online survey, and elementary students (n = 186) completed a questionnaire and open‐ended worksheet. Results indicated that the program was feasible for teaching important coping skills to elementary school students. While there were specific challenges and barriers reported regarding program implementation, the program was deemed useful, engaging, and beneficial for students overall. These findings provide invaluable information from key stakeholders that will permit revisions and improvements to the program post‐validation. This study also serves to further bridge the research‐to‐practice gap by incorporating facilitator and student perspectives into existing interventions to ensure the successful and sustained transfer of clinical practice into the school setting.
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 | 0.048 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".