Optimizing an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Microintervention Via a Mobile App With Two Cohorts: Protocol for Micro-Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given gaps in the treatment of mental health, brief adaptive interventions have become a public health imperative. Transdiagnostic interventions may be particularly appropriate given high rates of medical comorbidity and the broader reach of transdiagnostic therapies. One such approach utilized herein is acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), which is focused on increasing engagement with values, awareness, and openness to internal experiences. ACT theory posits that experiential avoidance is at the center of human suffering, regardless of diagnosis, and, as such, seeks to reduce unworkable experiential avoidance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to provide the rationale and protocol for examining the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of optimizing an ACT-based intervention via a mobile app among two disparate samples, which differ in sociodemographic characteristics and symptom profiles. METHODS: Twice each day, participants are prompted via a mobile app to complete assessments of mood and activity and are then randomly assigned to an ACT-based intervention or not. These interventions are questions regarding engagement with values, awareness, and openness to internal experiences. Participant responses are recorded. Analyses will examine completion of assessments, change in symptoms from baseline assessment, and proximal change in mood and activity. A primary outcome of interest is proximal change in activity (eg, form and function of behavior and energy consumed by avoidance and values-based behavior) following interventions as a function of time, symptoms, and behavior, where we hypothesize that participants will focus more energy on values-based behaviors. Analyses will be conducted using a weighted and centered least squares approach. Two samples will run concurrently to assess the capacity of optimizing mobile ACT in populations that differ widely in their clinical presentation and sociodemographic characteristics: individuals with bipolar disorder (n=30) and distressed first-generation college students (n=50). RESULTS: Recruitment began on September 10, 2019, for the bipolar sample and on October 5, 2019, for the college sample. Participation in the study began on October 18, 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This study examines an ACT-based intervention among two disparate samples. Should ACT demonstrate feasibility and preliminary effectiveness in each sample, a large randomized controlled trial applying ACT across diagnoses and demographics would be indicated. The public health implications of such an approach may be far-reaching. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04098497; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04098497; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04081662; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04081662. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17086.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.015 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".