A Clinician-Controlled Just-in-time Adaptive Intervention System (CBT+) Designed to Promote Acquisition and Utilization of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Skills in Bulimia Nervosa: Development and Preliminary Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for bulimia nervosa (BN) is most effective when patients demonstrate adequate skill utilization (ie, the frequency with which a patient practices or uses therapeutic skills) and skill acquisition (ie, the ability to successfully perform a skill learned in treatment). However, rates of utilization and acquisition of key treatment skills (eg, regular eating, urge management skills, and mood management skills) by the end of the treatment are frequently low; as a result, outcomes from CBT for BN are affected. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) may improve skill acquisition and utilization by delivering real-time interventions during algorithm-identified opportunities for skill practice. OBJECTIVE: In this manuscript, we describe a newly developed JITAI system called CBT+ that is designed to facilitate the acquisition and utilization of CBT for BN treatment skills when used as a treatment augmentation. We also present feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes data from a small proof-of-concept pilot trial (n=5 patients and n=3 clinicians) designed to identify opportunities for iterative development of CBT+ ahead of a larger ongoing randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 5 individuals with BN received 16 sessions of outpatient CBT for BN while using the CBT+ app. Data were collected from patients and clinicians to evaluate the feasibility (eg, app use and user adherence), acceptability (eg, qualitative patient and clinician feedback, including usefulness ratings of CBT+ on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1=extremely useless to 6=extremely useful), and preliminary outcomes (eg, improvements in skill utilization and acquisition and BN symptoms) of the CBT+ system. RESULTS: Patients reported that CBT+ was a relatively low burden (eg, quick and easy-to-use self-monitoring interface), and adherence to in-app self-monitoring was high (mean entries per day 3.13, SD 1.03). JITAIs were perceived as useful by both patients (median rating 5/6) and clinicians (median rating 5/6) for encouraging the use of CBT skills. Large improvements in CBT skills and clinically significant reductions in BN symptoms were observed post treatment. Although preliminary findings indicated that the CBT+ system was acceptable to most patients and clinicians, the overall study dropout was relatively high (ie, 2/5, 40% patients), which could indicate some moderate concerns regarding feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: CBT+, the first-ever JITAI system designed to facilitate the acquisition and utilization of CBT for BN treatment skills when used as a treatment augmentation, was shown to be feasible and acceptable. The results indicate that the CBT+ system should be subjected to more rigorous evaluations with larger samples and should be considered for wider implementation if found effective. Areas for iterative improvement of the CBT+ system ahead of a randomized controlled trial are also discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".