Healing Words: Effects of Psychoeducation on Likelihood to Seek and Refer Psychedelic-Assisted Psychotherapy Among BIPOC Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) is gaining renewed interest as a treatment for various mental disorders. However, there has been limited Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) representation in PAP clinical trials, signaling the need for culturally consonant communication about the efficacy and safety of PAP. We randomly assigned 321 BIPOC and 301 non-Hispanic White participants to four different modes of psychoeducation (didactic, visual, narrative, hope-based) and tested effects on likelihood of seeking and referring others to PAP using ANCOVAS. The influences of different psychoeducation components on these likelihoods were also tested using hierarchical regression modeling. Regardless of psychoeducation mode, BIPOC participants were more likely to seek PAP than non-Hispanic White participants after psychoeducation. Further, information on physical safety and success rate of PAP uniquely predicted BIPOC participants' likelihood of seeking and referring others to PAP after psychoeducation. Our findings suggest that once provided psychoeducation, BIPOC participants are receptive to seeking or referring others to PAP. BIPOC participants also appear to prioritize physical safety and rate of success of PAP in these decisions. Stigma against PAP is likely not the primary barrier to recruitment of BIPOC individuals into PAP trials. Instead, researchers should conduct more psychoeducational outreach to diversify future trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".