A Feasibility Study and Process Evaluation of a Parent-Led Anxiety Intervention Grounded in Modular Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety often emerges early in life and can significantly hinder the development and well-being of children. Although cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) stands as the primary treatment for anxiety, barriers to treatment as well as difficulties with sustained long-term treatment gains pose challenges. Moreover, the standardized structure, cognitive requirements, and lack of parental involvement may not best suit the needs of young children. Alternatively, parent-led interventions that are facilitated by clinicians circumvent many traditional barriers to addressing childhood anxiety. Further, modular therapy programs offer flexibility and individualized treatment to address specific client needs. The current study evaluated the perceived feasibility and the completion of a process evaluation of the first four weeks of a virtual, short-term parent-led modular anxiety intervention grounded in CBT. Data was collected from seven parents of children who were experiencing anxiety difficulty in London, Ontario. Thematic analysis revealed four key themes: barriers to traditional treatment, satisfaction with the current intervention, parental components, and child factors influencing treatment. The findings outlined that parents rated the intervention as acceptable. The process evaluation revealed key components, factors, and characteristics of the program’s implementation. These findings can inform future developments and delivery of the current intervention.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".