Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Research Protocols
Date Submitted: Feb 13, 2020
Date Accepted: Feb 19, 2020
Sub-study Correction: Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability
ABSTRACT
Correction of: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2019/10/e14990/ The authors of “Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability” (https://www.researchprotocols.org/2019/10/e14990/) have identified an error in reporting some details of one of the UW ALACRITY Center’s sub-studies. Specifically, Study 1 (the learnability study) was reported as occurring with farm workers in “eastern Washington State” when it will actually occur in “central Washington State” (page 4). Related, Study 1 is described as involving cognitive behavioral therapy delivered “by bachelor degree–level social work students who manage health care for migrant farm workers” when it is more accurate to indicate that the services are delivered “by trained bachelor degree-level social work students to rural and/or migrant Latino workers” (page 4). So, with these changes, the final sentence on page 4 should read, “Study 1 focuses on improving learnability by implementing a novel EBPI training program to support the delivery of a manualized telephone-based cognitive behavioral therapy (tCBT) [44] by trained bachelor degree-level social work students to rural and/or migrant Latino workers in Central Washington State.” This latter correction is also relevant to page 6, where Study 1 participants are also referenced. There, “the pool of stakeholder participants will include 15 bachelor’s degree–level social workers” should read, “the pool of stakeholder participants will include 15 bachelor degree-level social work students.” Finally, on page 7, the manuscripts states that the intelligent tutoring system (ITS), “was selected for Study 1 because it can be scaled for broad use and reflects a standardized method that can help mitigate trainer drift.” Instead it should indicate that the ITS “reflects a standardized method that can help mitigate trainee drift.” The authors apologize for these oversights.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.