Evaluation of additional resources used in therapist-assisted transdiagnostic internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (ICBT) programs, beyond standardized core ICBT lessons, brief additional resources are sometimes available to clients to address comorbid concerns or offer additional information/strategies. These resources remain understudied in terms of how they are selected and perceived by clients, as well as their relationship to satisfaction and outcomes. Among clients ( N = 793) enrolled in a 5-lesson transdiagnostic ICBT course, we examined client use and perceptions of 18 additional resources at 8 weeks in terms of whether clients found resources informative (yes/no) and or helpful (yes/no). Resources elaborated on cognitive strategies (managing beliefs, risk calculation) or on managing specific problems (agricultural stress, alcohol misuse, anger, assertiveness, chronic conditions, communication, grief, health anxiety, motivation, pain, panic, postpartum depression/anxiety, PTSD, sleep, workplace accomodations, worry). Clients also completed symptom measures and ICBT satisfaction questions at 8 weeks. Approximately 50 % ( n = 398) of clients rated the resources and, on average, clients reported that 3.35 (SD = 3.34) resources were informative and 2.35 (SD = 2.52) resources were helpful as measured by direct questions developed for this study. Higher pre-treatment PTSD and GAD scores were related to a greater number of resources perceived as informative and or helpful. Rating more resources as informative and or helpful had a weak but positive association with ICBT satisfaction and depression, anxiety, PTSD and insomnia change scores. Limitations of the study include that 31 % ( n = 245) did not respond to questions about use of resources and 18.9 % ( n = 150) said they did not review resources. There is considerable use of diverse additional resources in ICBT in routine care. Associations suggest that clients are using resources to personalize treatment to their needs and these resources are associated with treatment satisfaction and outcomes. The correlational associations between symptoms and perceived helpfulness of resources can help inform personalization algorithms to optimize ICBT delivery for clients. Further research on how to match clients with, encourage use of, and maximize benefits of resources would be beneficial. • Brief additiogepnal resources can help to personalize ICBT. • Resources on worry, beliefs, and sleep were downloaded most often. • Positive resource ratings were associated with ICBT satisfaction. • Positive resource ratings were associated with symptom change scores.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".