Use and Engagement With Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Techniques Used Within an App to Support Worry Management: Content Analysis of Log Data
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy (LICBT) has been implemented by the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services across England to manage excessive worry associated with generalized anxiety disorder and support emotional well-being. However, barriers to access limit scalability. A solution has been to incorporate LICBT techniques derived from an evidence-based protocol within the Iona Mind Well-being app for Worry management (IMWW) with support provided through an algorithmically driven conversational agent. Objective This study aims to examine engagement with a mobile phone app to support worry management with specific attention directed toward interaction with specific LICBT techniques and examine the potential to reduce symptoms of anxiety. Methods Log data were examined with respect to a sample of “engaged” users who had completed at least 1 lesson related to the Worry Time and Problem Solving in-app modules that represented the “minimum dose.” Paired sample 2-tailed t tests were undertaken to examine the potential for IMWW to reduce worry and anxiety, with multivariate linear regressions examining the extent to which completion of each of the techniques led to reductions in worry and anxiety. Results There was good engagement with the range of specific LICBT techniques included within IMWW. The vast majority of engaged users were able to interact with the cognitive behavioral therapy model and successfully record types of worry. When working through Problem Solving, the conversational agent was successfully used to support the user with lower levels of engagement. Several users engaged with Worry Time outside of the app. Forgetting to use the app was the most common reason for lack of engagement, with features of the app such as completion of routine outcome measures and weekly reflections having lower levels of engagement. Despite difficulties in the collection of end point data, there was a significant reduction in severity for both anxiety (t53=5.5; P<.001; 95% CI 2.4-5.2) and low mood (t53=2.3; P=.03; 95% CI 0.2-3.3). A statistically significant linear model was also fitted to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (F2,51=6.73; P<.001), while the model predicting changes in the Patient Health Questionnaire–8 did not reach significance (F2,51=2.33; P=.11). This indicates that the reduction in these measures was affected by in-app engagement with Worry Time and Problem Solving. Conclusions Engaged users were able to successfully interact with the LICBT-specific techniques informed by an evidence-based protocol although there were lower completion rates of routine outcome measures and weekly reflections. Successful interaction with the specific techniques potentially contributes to promising data, indicating that IMWW may be effective in the management of excessive worry. A relationship between dose and improvement justifies the use of log data to inform future developments. However, attention needs to be directed toward enhancing interaction with wider features of the app given that larger improvements were associated with greater engagement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».