Computer-Based Training for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Substance Use Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial Including Quantitative and Qualitative Health and Economic Outcomes: Formation informatisée pour la thérapie cognitivo-comportementale pour les troubles liés à l'usage de substances : un essai randomisé contrôlé y compris les résultats quantitatifs et qualitatifs en matière de santé et d’économie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesHeavy alcohol and drug use is reported by a substantial number of Canadians; yet, only a minority of those experiencing substance use difficulties access specialized services. Computer-Based Training for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT4CBT) offers a low-cost method to deliver accessible and high-quality CBT for substance use difficulties. To date, CBT4CBT has primarily been evaluated in terms of quantitative outcomes within substance use disorder (SUD) samples in the United States. A comparison between CBT4CBT versus standard care for SUDs in a Canadian sample is critical to evaluate its potential for health services in Canada. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of CBT4CBT versus standard care for SUD.MethodsAdults seeking outpatient treatment for SUD (<i>N</i> = 50) were randomly assigned to receive either CBT4CBT or treatment-as-usual (TAU) for 8 weeks. Measures of substance use and associated harms and quality of life were completed before and after treatment and at 6-month follow-up. Qualitative interviews were administered after treatment and at follow-up, and healthcare utilization and costs were extracted for the entire study period.ResultsParticipants exhibited improvements on the primary outcome as well as several secondary outcomes; however, there were no differences between groups. A cost-effectiveness analysis found lower healthcare costs in CBT4CBT versus TAU in a subsample analysis, but more days of substance use in CBT4CBT. Qualitative analyses highlighted the benefits and challenges of CBT4CBT.DiscussionFindings supported an overall improvement in clinical outcomes. Further investigation is warranted to identify opportunities for implementation of CBT4CBT in tertiary care settings.<b>Trial Registration:</b>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03767907
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".