Experiences using an online therapist-guided psychotherapy platform (OPTT) in correctional workers with depression, anxiety, and PTSD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Correctional workers (CWs) are frequently exposed to potentially traumatic events in the workplace, leading to an increased prevalence of mental health concerns. Online psychotherapy can address many of the barriers CWs face when seeking adequate mental health care. Despite their benefits, CWs' experience using digital mental health interventions is relatively unknown. This information could be valuable in developing enhanced care delivery to improve recruitment, retention, satisfaction, and treatment outcomes. Methods: This study investigated the experiences of a sample of CWs enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of the Online Psychotherapy Tool (OPTT) in this population. Participants were surveyed and interviewed to capture their opinions and feedback on the program. Survey analysis was conducted through Qualtrics statistical analysis software. The interview transcripts and open-ended survey questions were analyzed using thematic analysis methods in NVivo. Results: Participants (n=14) were cis-gender, predominantly white, with an average age of 38 years. While most respondents preferred in-person therapy, they also reported the benefits of the online psychotherapy program. Specifically, they expressed positive perceptions of the platform, the quality and interaction of their care provider, and the homework assignments and skills learned. Lack of motivation to complete weekly homework assignments was a frequently cited challenge. Unhelpful aspects of the therapy noted issues with the online format and frustration with certain program elements. Discussion: Participants expressed a positive outlook on the program, the platform, and treatment outcomes. A preference for in-person therapy was still indicated, demonstrating the need to focus on engagement in digital mental health interventions. In addition, the findings of this study shed light on the factors that can influence help-seeking in this population, including stigma in the work environment, demanding work schedules, workplace perceptions, and previous experiences accessing mental health services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".