MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982104132 · doi:10.2196/13807

Potential Reduction of Symptoms With the Use of Persuasive Systems Design Features in Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Programs for Children and Adolescents With Anxiety: A Realist Synthesis

2019· review· en· W2982104132 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ashley D Radomski, Lori Wozney, Patrick J. McGrath, Anna Huguet, Lisa Hartling, Michele P. Dyson, Kathryn Bennett, Amanda S. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)CredibilityPsychologyCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionApplied psychologyClinical psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for children and adolescents is a persuasive system that combines 3 major components to therapy-therapeutic content, technological features, and interactions between the user and program-intended to reduce users' anxiety symptoms. Several reviews report the effectiveness of iCBT; however, iCBT design and delivery components differ widely across programs, which raise important questions about how iCBT effects are produced and can be optimized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review and synthesize the iCBT literature using a realist approach with a persuasive systems perspective to (1) document the design and delivery components of iCBT and (2) generate hypotheses as to how these components may explain changes in anxiety symptoms after completing iCBT. METHODS: A multi-strategy search identified published and gray literature on iCBT for child and adolescent anxiety up until June 2019. Documents that met our prespecified inclusion criteria were appraised for relevance and methodological rigor. Data extraction was guided by the persuasive systems design (PSD) model. The model describes 28 technological design features, organized into 4 categories that help users meet their health goals: primary task support, dialogue support, system credibility support, and social support. We generated initial hypotheses for how PSD (mechanisms) and program delivery (context of use) features were linked to symptom changes (outcomes) across iCBT programs using realist and meta-ethnographic techniques. These hypothesized context-mechanism-outcome configurations were refined during analysis using evidence from the literature to improve their explanatory value. RESULTS: A total of 63 documents detailing 15 iCBT programs were included. A total of six iCBT programs were rated high for relevance, and most studies were of moderate-to-high methodological rigor. A total of 11 context-mechanism-outcome configurations (final hypotheses) were generated. Configurations primarily comprised PSD features from the primary task and dialogue support categories. Several key PSD features (eg, self-monitoring, simulation, social role, similarity, social learning, and rehearsal) were consistently reported in programs shown to reduce anxiety; many features were employed simultaneously, suggesting synergy when grouped. We also hypothesized the function of PSD features in generating iCBT impacts. Adjunct support was identified as an important aspect of context that may have complemented certain PSD features in reducing users' anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis generated context-mechanism-outcome configurations (hypotheses) about the potential function, combination, and impact of iCBT program components thought to support desired program effects. We suggest that, when delivered with adjunct support, PSD features may contribute to reduced anxiety for child and adolescent users. Formal testing of the 11 configurations is required to confirm their impact on anxiety-based outcomes. From this we encourage a systematic and deliberate approach to iCBT design and evaluation to increase the pool of evidence-based interventions available to prevent and treat children and adolescents with anxiety.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207