Impact of an Online Discussion Forum on Self-Guided Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Public Safety Personnel: Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) is an effective and accessible treatment for various mental health concerns. ICBT has shown promising treatment outcomes among public safety personnel (PSP), who experience high rates of mental health problems and face barriers to accessing other mental health services. Client engagement and clinical outcomes are better in ICBT with therapist guidance, but ICBT is easier to implement on a large scale when it is self-guided. Therefore, it is important to identify strategies to improve outcomes and engagement in self-guided ICBT and other self-guided digital mental health interventions. One such strategy is the use of online discussion forums to provide ICBT clients with opportunities for mutual social support. Self-guided interventions accompanied by online discussion forums have shown excellent treatment outcomes, but there is a need for research experimentally testing the impact of online discussion forums in ICBT. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate a transdiagnostic, self-guided ICBT intervention tailored specifically for PSP (which had not previously been assessed), assess the impact of adding a therapist-moderated online discussion forum on outcomes, and analyze participants' feedback to inform future research and implementation efforts. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we randomly assigned participating PSP (N=107) to access an 8-week transdiagnostic, self-guided ICBT course with or without a built-in online discussion forum. Enrollment and participation were entirely web-based. We assessed changes in depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress as well as several secondary outcome measures (eg, treatment engagement and satisfaction) using questionnaires at the pre-enrollment, 8-week postenrollment, and 20-week postenrollment time points. Mixed methods analyses included multilevel modeling and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Participants engaged minimally with the forum, creating 9 posts. There were no differences in treatment outcomes between participants who were randomly assigned to access the forum (56/107, 52.3%) and those who were not (51/107, 47.7%). Across conditions, participants who reported clinically significant symptoms during enrollment showed large and statistically significant reductions in symptoms (P<.05 and d>0.97 in all cases). Participants also showed good treatment engagement and satisfaction, with 43% (46/107) of participants fully completing the intervention during the course of the study and 96% (79/82) indicating that the intervention was worth their time. CONCLUSIONS: Previous research has shown excellent clinical outcomes for self-guided ICBT accompanied by discussion forums and good engagement with those forums. Although clinical outcomes in our study were excellent across conditions, engagement with the forum was poor, in contrast to previous research. We discuss several possible interpretations of this finding (eg, related to the population under study or the design of the forum). Our findings highlight a need for more research evaluating the impact of online discussion forums and other strategies for improving outcomes and engagement in self-guided ICBT and other digital mental health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05145582; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05145582.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".