MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Satisfaction, Engagement, and Outcomes in Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Adapted for People of Diverse Ethnocultural Groups: An Observational Trial with Benchmarking

2023· preprint· en· W4385215715 on OpenAlexafffund
Ram P. Sapkota, Emma Valli, Blake F. Dear, Nickolai Titov, Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsObservational studyMental healthAnxietyPsychological interventionClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychologyPopulationMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depression and anxiety are the most common mental health disorders worldwide. Internet-Delivered Cogni-tive Behaviour Therapy (ICBT) can reduce barriers to care for broad cross sections of the population. How-ever, People of Diverse Ethnocultural Backgrounds (PDEGs) other than White/Caucasian underutilize mental health services and are underrepresented in clinical trials of psychological interventions. To address this research gap, we adapted an evidence-based ICBT program for PDEGs. The current pilot study explores the effectiveness, satisfaction, and engagement in the adapted ICBT by PDEGs (N=41) when benchmarked against a sample of PDEGs (N=134) drawn from a previous non-adapted version of the ICBT program. Inntent-to-treat analyses showed that the adapted ICBT program is effective in reducing anxiety and de-pression symptoms among PDEGs. Large within-group pre-to-post-treatment Cohen’s effect sizes of d = 1.23, 95% CI [0.68, 1.77] and d = 1.24, 95% CI [0.69, 1.79] were found for depression and anxiety, respectively. Further, 81.8% of the PDEGs who received the adapted ICBT program reported high overall satisfaction, 90.9 % reported increased confidence in managing symptoms, and 70.7% of participants completed the ma-jority of the psychoeducational lessons in the ICBT program. No statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes, engagement, and satisfaction were found between the pilot study and benchmark sample. Future directions for ICBT research with PDEGs are described.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.472
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.007 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→