Evaluation of a Commercial Mobile Health App for Depression and Anxiety (AbleTo Digital+): Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Digital solutions, such as web-based and mobile interventions, have the potential to streamline pathways to mental health services and improve access to mental health care. Although a growing number of randomized trials have established the efficacy of digital interventions for common mental health problems, less is known about the real-world impact of these tools. AbleTo Digital+, a commercially available mental health app for depression and anxiety, offers a unique opportunity to understand the clinical impact of such tools delivered in a real-world context. Objective The primary aim of this study is to examine the magnitude of change in depression and anxiety symptoms among individuals who used AbleTo Digital+ programs. The secondary aim is to evaluate Digital+ module completion, including the use of 1:1 coaching. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed previously collected and permanently deidentified data from a consecutive cohort of 1896 adults who initiated using one of the three Digital+ eight-module programs (depression, generalized anxiety, or social anxiety) between January 1 and June 30, 2020. Depression, generalized anxiety, and social anxiety symptoms were assessed within each program using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and the Social Phobia Inventory, respectively. Linear mixed effects models were built to assess the association between module completion and symptom change among users who completed at least four modules and had at least mild baseline symptom elevations, controlling for age, gender, and baseline symptom severity. Digital+ use, including module completion, 1:1 coaching calls, and in-app coach messaging, was also evaluated. Results Significant effects were observed among depression (Cohen d=1.5), generalized anxiety (Cohen d=1.2), and social anxiety (Cohen d=1.0) program participants who completed at least four modules and had mild baseline elevations (n=470). Associations between module completion and change in depression (β=−1.2; P<.001), generalized anxiety (β=−1.1; P<.001), and social anxiety (β=−2.4; P<.001) symptom scores retained significance with covariate adjustment. Participants completed an average of 2.6 (SD 2.7) modules. The average total length of app use was 52.2 (SD 83.5) days. Approximately two-thirds of the users engaged in at least 1 coaching call (66.82%, 1267/1896) or in-app text messaging (66.09%, 1253/1896). Participants who completed at least four modules participated in significantly more coaching calls per module (mean 1.1, SD 0.7) than users who completed fewer than four modules (mean 1.0, SD 1.2; t1407=−2.1; P=.03). Conclusions This study demonstrated that AbleTo Digital+ users experienced significant reductions in depression, generalized anxiety, and social anxiety symptoms throughout the program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".