Individually Tailored and Culturally Adapted Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Arabic-Speaking Youths With Mental Health Problems in Sweden: Qualitative Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most forcibly displaced refugees in Sweden originate from the Arab Republic of Syria and Iraq. Approximately half of all refugees are aged between 15 and 26 years. This particular group of youths is at a higher risk for developing various mental disorders. However, low use of mental health services across Europe has been reported. Previous research indicates that culturally adapted psychological interventions may be suitable for refugee youths. However, little is known about the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of such psychological interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an individually tailored and culturally adapted internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for Arabic-speaking refugees and immigrant youths in Sweden. METHODS: A total of 17 participants were included to participate in an open trial study of an individually tailored and culturally adapted internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy targeting common mental health problems. To assess the intervention outcome, the Hopkins Symptom Checklist was used. To explore the acceptability of the intervention, in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 participants using thematic analysis. Feasibility was assessed by measuring treatment adherence and by calculating recruitment and retention rates. RESULTS: The intervention had a high dropout rate and low feasibility. Quantitative analyses of the treatment efficacy were not possible because of the high dropout rate. The qualitative analysis resulted in 3 overarching categories: experiences with SahaUng (the treatment), attitudes toward psychological interventions, and personal factors important for adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study indicate that the feasibility and acceptability of the current intervention were low and, based on the qualitative analysis, could be increased by a refinement of recruitment strategies, further simplification of the treatment content, and modifications to the cultural adaptation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".