Scaling up interpersonal psychotherapy training: A pilot randomized controlled trial of digital asynchronous self-directed vs. synchronous group workshop training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• 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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".