MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413971461 · doi:10.1017/s1352465825100957

Comparing in-person to videoconference group cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for depressive disorders in an out-patient mood disorders clinic

2025· article· en· W4413971461 on OpenAlexaff
Aislinn Sandre, Anastasiya Slyepchenko, Brenda L. Key, S Simons, Julie Sgambato, Caitlin J. Davey

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotherapistMood disordersPsychologyGroup psychotherapyCognitionClinical psychologyMoodCognitive therapyPsychiatryCognitive behaviour therapyDepression (economics)VideoconferencingAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Despite their considerable public health impact, most people with depressive disorders do not receive treatment due to barriers that limit access to high-quality care. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, depressive symptoms have sharply increased, and access-to-care barriers were magnified by physical distancing requirements. Videoconferencing is a virtual care modality that reduces access-to-care barriers and can be used to deliver cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), an evidence-based treatment for depressive disorders. However, it is unclear whether videoconference CBT effectively decreases depressive symptoms, particularly in a group therapy format. Aim: This non-randomized study compared outcomes of group CBT for depressive disorders delivered via videoconference versus in-person. Method: Data on clinical outcomes (pre- and post-treatment depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms), treatment attendance, drop-out, and patient satisfaction were collected from adult outpatients of a mood disorders clinic who attended 14 weekly group CBT sessions either in-person (pre-pandemic; n =255) or via videoconference (during the pandemic; n =113). Results: Pre- to post-treatment decreases in depression, anxiety and stress symptoms did not differ between treatment modalities ( β =–.01–.06, p >.05). These effects were robust to patient-level factors (i.e. age, sex, co-morbidities, medication use). Moreover, videoconference group CBT was associated with higher attendance ( d =0.33) and lower drop-out (53% vs 70% of participants) compared with in-person group CBT. Conclusions: Videoconference group CBT for depressive disorders appears to be a promising and effective alternative to in-person CBT. However, these findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s non-randomized design and the potential confounding effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural and Cognitive PsychotherapySame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207