MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387616965 · doi:10.1177/10443894231193058

Clinician Perceptions of Online Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study

2023· article· en· W4387616965 on OpenAlexaff
Ruxandra M. Gheorghe, Sarah Tarshis, Kenta Asakura

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPsychological interventionPerceptionQualitative researchMedicineComputer-assisted web interviewingService delivery frameworkPsychologyMedical educationNursingService (business)PsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Albeit the height of COVID-19 has ended, clinicians have continued to regularly provide online therapy services. In the spring of 2021 during the third wave of COVID-19, we conducted an online survey study to examine psychosocial experiences among mental health clinicians ( N = 196). The survey included two open-ended questions about the use of online therapy as a mode of service delivery. Using a qualitative content analysis of those responses, this article reports the findings on clinicians’ perceptions of online therapy. The following themes identified are: (a) greater access to specialized mental health services, (b) contested notion of therapy as a “safe space,” (c) less immersive clinical interventions, and (d) enhanced opportunity for professional growth. Implications for online-based social work practice are discussed.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social ServicesSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207