The Effectiveness of Short-Term Counselling in the Treatment of Mass Traumatic Events: A Comparison of Cases Related and Unrelated to COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great deal of concern exists over the impact of COVID-19 on people’s mental health, with many employees experiencing anxiety over their health and safety and that of their loved ones. The viability of short-term counselling to treat mental health cases related to COVID-19 was explored. Two hypotheses were tested: 1) the short-term counselling component of employee and family assistance programs is equally effective in the treatment of cases related to COVID-19 as it is in the treatment of cases unrelated to COVID-19; 2) after a certain number of counselling sessions, the improvement in outcomes greatly diminishes for short-term counselling cases. Results showed positive outcomes for both case types, related or not to COVID-19. In addition, a diminishing return was found as the number of treatment sessions increased. From a clinical perspective, the results supported the viability of short-term counselling as a treatment option for cases related to COVID-19, thus suggesting short-term counselling is an effective approach for mental health issues stemming from mass traumatic events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".