MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414946924 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1657309

Introducing internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy in the Latvian government-funded mental health sector

2025· article· en· W4414946924 on OpenAlexaff
Ieva Kince-Laus, Liene Sīle, Jurijs Novickis, Elizabete Romanovska, Liene Dambiņa, Māris Taube

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsMental healthCognitive behavioral therapyPsychological interventionLatvianReferralPopulationDepression (economics)Public healthMental healthcare

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As mental health challenges grow globally, innovative interventions are being sought. Internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (iCBT) offers a promising alternative to traditional psychotherapy-reducing costs, improving accessibility, and addressing healthcare worker shortages in the public sector-essential for Latvia, where many people live in rural areas, have limited income and there is a lack of mental health specialists, making it difficult for patients to access psychological support. In 2024, Latvia launched its first government-funded iCBT pilot. This study introduces the framework and implementation strategy of the Latvian iCBT pilot, done in collaboration with Finland's HUS and the HealthFox platform. The program targets young adults from the age of 18 to 25 with mild to moderate depression and anxiety, based on validated clinical thresholds (PHQ-9 >8, GAD-7 >10). The population clinical symptoms were designed similarly to previous experience with iCBT evaluated in Finland. The structured therapy, delivered through a mobile app, includes weekly guided sessions, personalized therapist feedback, and interactive digital modules. This article examines the architecture of the pilot-its referral system, therapy modules, data collection process, and therapist responsibilities. Also, it is looking at it within broader global evidence on iCBT efficacy, dropout rates, and patient satisfaction.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
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 venueFrontiers in Psychiatry→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→