MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405408873 · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100863

Scaling up interpersonal psychotherapy training: A pilot randomized controlled trial of digital asynchronous self-directed vs. synchronous group workshop training

2024· article· en· W4405408873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSinai Health SystemSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationRandomized controlled trialPsychotherapistInterpersonal communicationInterpersonal psychotherapyTraining (meteorology)PsychologyComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Digital self-directed training in IPT for depression is feasible and acceptable • Digital IPT training has potential to improve trainee clinical competence and patient outcomes • Video-recorded skills demonstrations in a digital course format facilitates learning • Accessible digital training has potential to increase the IPT-trained workforce Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) is an effective depression treatment but limited numbers of trained providers result in less access than patients need. Asynchronous self-directed digital training may reduce this gap. We developed digital IPT training and evaluated it in a pilot parallel randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry residents (N=25) in Toronto, Canada, were randomly assigned, 1:1, to an asynchronous self-directed digital course (intervention; n=13) or synchronous group training-as-usual workshop (control; n=12) and then delivered ∼12 clinically-supervised individual IPT sessions to depressed patients (N=26; 10≥PHQ9<20). The primary objective was to examine intervention feasibility and acceptability (retention, facilitators, barriers). We also examined resident competence (IPT knowledge, confidence, clinical skills, therapeutic alliances) and patient depressive outcomes (PHQ9). Resident retention in intervention (10/13; 76.9%) vs control (11/12; 91.7%) groups did not differ ( p =.59). Qualitative semi-structured interviews with intervention residents (n=10) revealed that IPT's relational focus, video-recorded expert demonstrations (9/10; 90%), and case-based digital curriculum's user-friendliness (7/10; 70%) were facilitators. Half missed peer interactions in group workshops and found some interactive course elements disrupted learning. Both groups’ competence improved over time (F≥25.7, p ≤.0001), with no significant between-arm differences in knowledge, confidence, skills, or therapeutic alliances (F≤1.07, p ≥.31). Intervention and control patient groups improved from baseline (PHQ9=14.6 vs. 13.2; F=24.4, p=.0001), with no significant between-arm post-treatment depressive symptom differences (PHQ9=7.63 vs. 7.60, t =-0.01 , p =.99). Small sample and provider type (psychiatry resident) limit generalizability. Digital asynchronous self-directed IPT training is feasible and acceptable, with preliminary evidence of efficacy for trainee competence and patient outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · 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