Acceptability and effectiveness study of therapist-assisted internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for agriculture producers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agriculture producers are less likely to seek or to receive mental health services compared to the general population. Additional research is needed to identify effective and accessible mental health interventions for this underserved population. This study used a mixed-methods approach and open trial design to examine the acceptability and effectiveness of therapist-assisted internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) supplemented with an additional agricultural resource for clients from agricultural backgrounds receiving ICBT in routine care. Clients (n = 34) participated in an online, five-lesson course that provided psychoeducation and strategies for dealing with symptoms of anxiety and depression, with weekly therapist assistance. Clients also received a tailored resource (developed with input from those with an agricultural background) providing culturally specific information and case stories pertinent to agricultural communities. Intent-to-treat analyses showed that the ICBT program was effective in reducing anxiety and depression symptoms among the agricultural population. Large within-group pre-to-post-treatment Cohen's effect sizes of d = 1.14, 95 % CI [0.41, 1.86] and d = 1.15, 95 % CI [0.42, 1.87] were found for depression and anxiety, respectively and comparable to the same program offered to the general population. Clients also experienced reductions in perceived stress and significant improvements in resiliency from pre- to post-treatment. Semi-structured interviews conducted at post-treatment with the agricultural clients (n = 31) on their experiences with ICBT identified four main themes: perceived strengths of ICBT and the tailored resource, suggestions to improve service delivery for agriculture producers, clients experienced internal and external challenges to participating in ICBT, and the positive impact of the course reached beyond the client. Very high satisfaction rates were found. These results provide support for the acceptability and effectiveness of ICBT with a tailored resource offered in routine care among agriculture producers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".