Acceptability and preferences of psychological interventions for attention and executive problems in young university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intervention acceptability is considered as one of the factors related to the efficacy and favourable outcomes post-therapy. Prospective or anticipated acceptability, which is measured before undertaking therapy, has yet to be assessed in the context of psychotherapies targeting emerging adults. This research aimed at measuring the anticipated acceptability and preference toward cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based therapy (MBT) (Study 1), and three delivery formats (in-person, online, or blended; Study 2). University students aged 18–25 (Study 1: N = 21; Study 2: N = 102) read vignettes for each intervention and filled questionnaires online. In Study 1, there were higher levels of acceptability toward CBT than MBT. In Study 2, acceptability levels were significantly higher for the in-person, followed by blended and online formats. There was also a significantly higher acceptability for in-person CBT compared to MBT. The in-person format was also preferred, but preferences for CBT or MBT were similar. Overall, students indicate a higher acceptability for CBT (Study 1) and CBT in-person (Study 2). As preferences toward both interventions were similar, asking about these could help personalizing our approach with university students.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".