MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403219335 · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-06082-7

A digital iCBT intervention for social anxiety disorder in Quebec and Ontario: protocol for a multi-phase effectiveness-implementation study

2024· article· en· W4403219335 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Helen‐Maria Vasiliadis, Pasquale Roberge, Jessica Spagnolo, Catherine Lamoureux‐Lamarche, Alexandra Chapdelaine, Magaly Brodeur, Jean Grenier, Alison Mahoney, Diana Koszycki, Marie‐Hélène Chomienne, Martin Drapeau, Réal Labelle, Martin D. Provencher, Marie-Claire Ishimo, John A. Naslund, Alain Lesage

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaPublic Health Agency of CanadaInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité LavalInstitut du Savoir MontfortCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité TÉLUQUniversité de SherbrookeHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSocial anxietyProtocol (science)Intervention (counseling)AnxietyPsychologyPhase (matter)PsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychotherapistMedicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is one of the most prevalent anxiety disorders in Canada. Viable therapy options for the treatment of SAD include CBT being delivered virtually. In Australia, an innovative internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (iCBT) program for social anxiety has been developed, implemented, and demonstrated as effective. To make available high-quality and real-time evidence in response to the crucial need to access psychological services to meet population mental health needs, we propose to conduct a Canadian adaptation of the iCBT Shyness Program and to examine the program's effectiveness, and implementation in two Canadian provinces (Quebec and Ontario). METHODS: The overall study design is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study of a quasi-experimental parallel group trial. Prior to implementing the iCBT Shyness Program, it will undergo an initial adaptation to the Canadian context and focus groups will be conducted with key actor groups to discuss the adaptations to the graphics, narration of the lessons, and this to better reflect varying socio-cultural context among Canadian French- and English-speaking populations. We will evaluate the effectiveness of the program in three parallel pathways reflecting real-world pathways: (1) self-refer to the intervention; (2) recommended by a health professional without guidance; and (3) recommended by a health professional, with low-intensity guidance. Data collection will be carried out at baseline, at the beginning of each lesson, 12-week and 6-month follow-up. Outcomes measured will include anxiety and depressive symptoms, psychological distress, disability, as well as health service utilization and satisfaction. Semi-structured interviews will then be conducted with study participants and health care providers to explore facilitating factors and barriers to the implementation of the iCBT adapted program. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence on the effectiveness, barriers and facilitating factors to implementing a low-intensity iCBT in the Canadian context for SAD, which will bridge an important care gap for undeserved populations in Canada with SAD. Findings will inform the eventual scaling up of the program in community-based primary care across Canada. This would improve equity of the health care system by helping a large number of Canadians to timely access to mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT06403995. Prospectively registered on 05/03/2024.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207