Incorporating a deep-learning client outcome prediction tool as feedback in supported internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy for depression and anxiety: A randomised controlled trial within routine clinical practice

IF 1.2 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Counselling & Psychotherapy Research Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1002/capr.12771
Garrett C. Hisler, Katherine S. Young, Diana Catalina Cumpanasoiu, Jorge E. Palacios, Daniel Duffy, Angel Enrique, Dessie Keegan, Derek Richards
{"title":"Incorporating a deep-learning client outcome prediction tool as feedback in supported internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy for depression and anxiety: A randomised controlled trial within routine clinical practice","authors":"Garrett C. Hisler,&nbsp;Katherine S. Young,&nbsp;Diana Catalina Cumpanasoiu,&nbsp;Jorge E. Palacios,&nbsp;Daniel Duffy,&nbsp;Angel Enrique,&nbsp;Dessie Keegan,&nbsp;Derek Richards","doi":"10.1002/capr.12771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Machine learning techniques have been leveraged to predict client psychological treatment outcomes. Few studies, however, have tested whether providing such model predictions as feedback to therapists improves client outcomes. This randomised controlled trial examined (1) the effects of implementing therapist feedback via a deep-learning model (DLM) tool that predicts client treatment response (i.e., reliable improvement on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]) to internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) in routine clinical care and (2) therapist acceptability of this prediction tool.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty-one therapists were randomly assigned to access the DLM tool (vs. treatment as usual [TAU]) and oversaw the care of 2394 clients who completed repeated PHQ-9 and GAD-7 assessments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Multilevel growth curve models revealed no overall differences between the DLM tool vs. TAU conditions in client clinical outcomes. However, clients of therapists with the DLM tool used more tools, completed more activities and visited more platform pages. In subgroup analyses, clients predicted to be ‘not-on-track’ were statistically significantly more likely to have reliable improvement on the PHQ-9 in the DLM vs. TAU group. Therapists with access to the DLM tool reported that it was acceptable for use, they had positive attitudes towards it, and reported it prompted greater examination and discussion of clients, particularly those predicted not to improve.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Altogether, the DLM tool was acceptable for therapists, and clients engaged more with the platform, with clinical benefits specific to reliable improvement on the PHQ-9 for not-on-track clients. Future applications and considerations for implementing machine learning predictions as feedback tools within iCBT are discussed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":46997,"journal":{"name":"Counselling & Psychotherapy Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/capr.12771","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Counselling & Psychotherapy Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/capr.12771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Machine learning techniques have been leveraged to predict client psychological treatment outcomes. Few studies, however, have tested whether providing such model predictions as feedback to therapists improves client outcomes. This randomised controlled trial examined (1) the effects of implementing therapist feedback via a deep-learning model (DLM) tool that predicts client treatment response (i.e., reliable improvement on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] or Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]) to internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) in routine clinical care and (2) therapist acceptability of this prediction tool.

Methods

Fifty-one therapists were randomly assigned to access the DLM tool (vs. treatment as usual [TAU]) and oversaw the care of 2394 clients who completed repeated PHQ-9 and GAD-7 assessments.

Results

Multilevel growth curve models revealed no overall differences between the DLM tool vs. TAU conditions in client clinical outcomes. However, clients of therapists with the DLM tool used more tools, completed more activities and visited more platform pages. In subgroup analyses, clients predicted to be ‘not-on-track’ were statistically significantly more likely to have reliable improvement on the PHQ-9 in the DLM vs. TAU group. Therapists with access to the DLM tool reported that it was acceptable for use, they had positive attitudes towards it, and reported it prompted greater examination and discussion of clients, particularly those predicted not to improve.

Conclusion

Altogether, the DLM tool was acceptable for therapists, and clients engaged more with the platform, with clinical benefits specific to reliable improvement on the PHQ-9 for not-on-track clients. Future applications and considerations for implementing machine learning predictions as feedback tools within iCBT are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将深度学习客户结果预测工具作为反馈纳入由互联网提供支持的抑郁和焦虑认知行为疗法:常规临床实践中的随机对照试验
机器学习技术已被用于预测客户的心理治疗结果。然而,很少有研究检验了将这种模型预测作为反馈提供给治疗师是否能改善客户的治疗效果。这项随机对照试验检验了(1)通过深度学习模型(DLM)工具实施治疗师反馈的效果,该工具可预测客户的治疗反应(即、患者健康问卷-9[PHQ-9]或广泛性焦虑症-7[GAD-7])的可靠改善)的效果,以及(2)治疗师对该预测工具的接受程度。51名治疗师被随机分配使用DLM工具(与常规治疗[TAU]相比),并监督2394名客户的治疗情况,这些客户完成了重复的PHQ-9和GAD-7评估。然而,使用 DLM 工具的治疗师的客户使用了更多的工具,完成了更多的活动,访问了更多的平台页面。在分组分析中,DLM组与TAU组相比,被预测为 "未步入正轨 "的客户在PHQ-9上获得可靠改善的可能性在统计学上明显更高。可以使用 DLM 工具的治疗师表示,该工具可以接受,他们对该工具持积极态度,并表示该工具促使他们对客户进行更多的检查和讨论,尤其是那些预计没有改善的客户。本文讨论了在 iCBT 中将机器学习预测作为反馈工具的未来应用和考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Counselling & Psychotherapy Research
Counselling & Psychotherapy Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Counselling and Psychotherapy Research is an innovative international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to linking research with practice. Pluralist in orientation, the journal recognises the value of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods strategies of inquiry and aims to promote high-quality, ethical research that informs and develops counselling and psychotherapy practice. CPR is a journal of the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, promoting reflexive research strongly linked to practice. The journal has its own website: www.cprjournal.com. The aim of this site is to further develop links between counselling and psychotherapy research and practice by offering accessible information about both the specific contents of each issue of CPR, as well as wider developments in counselling and psychotherapy research. The aims are to ensure that research remains relevant to practice, and for practice to continue to inform research development.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Collaboration with clients to create journal notes: A mixed methods evaluation of a pilot intervention study in a municipality mental health services team Reflections from LGBTQIA+ individuals of their past experiences of psychotherapy and counselling and the use of creative therapy—A qualitative study Effects of a muscle relaxation exercise programme on test anxiety and sleep quality among fourth-year nursing students before comprehensive examination in Palestine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1