MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117465558 · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-09284-w

Cognitive therapy for depression in tuberculosis treatment: protocol for process evaluation of a multicenter hybrid type 1 effectiveness implementation trial in Pakistan

2025· article· en· W7117465558 on OpenAlexaff
Fayaz Ahmad, Maryiam Rahim, Fatima Khalid Qazi, Zohaib Khan, Shaista Rasool, Zeeshan Kibria, Noor Sanauddin, Mirrat Gul, Farooq Naeem, Muhammad Firaz, Haroon Latif Khan, Saima Sheikh, Saeed Farooq

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsProtocol (science)Depression (economics)TuberculosisCognitionCognitive behavioral therapyCognitive therapyClinical trialMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant public health challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Pakistan, where TB and depression frequently co-occur, negatively impacting treatment adherence and outcomes. The cognitive therapy for depression in tuberculosis (CONTROL) trial evaluates the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based intervention integrated into TB care. Following the Proctor's framework, this process evaluation aims to assess key implementation outcomes of the trial, including acceptability, adoption, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability, to inform the potential scale-up of the intervention within Pakistan's routine TB care. METHODS: This mixed-methods process evaluation is embedded within the CONTROL randomized controlled trial conducted in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Quantitative data collection will include structured implementation outcome measures such as Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), Applied Mental Health Research (AMHR) group tool, Revised Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS-R), CBT-content delivery assessment checklist, Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI), and trial administrative data logs. Qualitative data will comprise semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Data collection will be at three points: 8-, 24-, and 32-week post-randomization across 12 TB care facilities. Quantitative data will be analyzed descriptively, while qualitative data will be analyzed thematically, followed by triangulation of findings. DISCUSSION: The process evaluation will inform the implementation of CBT-based intervention within TB care. It will also identify barriers and facilitators for integrating mental health care in the TB control program for future scale-up. Findings will inform policymakers on the feasibility of incorporating mental health interventions into routine TB care, support improved patient outcomes, and contribute to global implementation science on integrated mental health care for chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10761003. Registered on November 2023.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.008

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 venueTrialsSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207