Exploring the Role of Persuasive Design in Unguided Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression and Anxiety Among Adults: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) is an effective treatment that can overcome barriers to mental health care. Various research groups have suggested that unguided ICBT (ie, ICBT without therapist support) and other eHealth interventions can be designed to enhance user engagement and thus outcomes. The persuasive systems design framework captures most design recommendations for eHealth interventions, but there is little empirical evidence that persuasive design is related to clinical outcomes in unguided ICBT. Objective This study aims to provide an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of unguided ICBT for depression and anxiety, describe the frequency with which various persuasive design principles are used in such interventions, and use meta-regression to explore whether a greater number of persuasive design elements predicts efficacy in unguided ICBT for depression and anxiety. Methods We conducted a systematic review of 5 databases to identify randomized controlled trials of unguided ICBT for depression and anxiety. We conducted separate random effects meta-analyses and separate meta-regressions for depression and anxiety interventions. Each meta-regression included 2 steps. The first step included, as a predictor, whether each intervention was transdiagnostic. For the meta-regression of ICBT for depression, the first step also included the type of control condition. The number of persuasive design principles identified for each intervention was added as a predictor in the second step to reveal the additional variance in effect sizes explained by persuasive design. Results Of the 4471 articles we identified in our search, 46 (1.03%) were eligible for inclusion in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed effect sizes (Hedges g) ranging from 0.22 to 0.31 for depression interventions, depending on the measures taken to account for bias in the results. We found a mean effect size of 0.45 (95% CI 0.33-0.56) for anxiety interventions, with no evidence that the results were inflated by bias. Included interventions were identified as using between 1 and 13 persuasive design principles, with an average of 4.95 (SD 2.85). The meta-regressions showed that a greater number of persuasive design principles predicted greater efficacy in ICBT for depression (R2 change=0.27; B=0.04; P=.02) but not anxiety (R2 change=0.05; B=0.03; P=.17). Conclusions These findings show wide variability in the use of persuasive design in unguided ICBT for depression and anxiety and provide preliminary support for the proposition that more persuasively designed interventions are more efficacious, at least in the treatment of depression. Further research is needed to clarify the role of persuasive design in ICBT.
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 | 0.041 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".