Measuring Adherence Within a Self-Guided Online Intervention for Depression and Anxiety: Secondary Analyses of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-guided online interventions offer users the ability to participate in an intervention at their own pace and address some traditional service barriers (eg, attending in-person appointments, cost). However, these interventions suffer from high dropout rates, and current literature provides little guidance for defining and measuring online intervention adherence as it relates to clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and test multiple measures of adherence to a specific self-guided online intervention, as guided by best practices from the literature. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses on data from a randomized controlled trial of an 8-week online cognitive behavioral program that targets depression and anxiety in college students. We defined multiple behavioral and attitudinal adherence measures at varying levels of effort (ie, low, moderate, and high). Linear regressions were run with adherence terms predicting improvement in the primary outcome measure, the 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: Of the 947 participants, 747 initiated any activity and 449 provided posttest data. Results from the intent-to-treat sample indicated that high level of effort for behavioral adherence significantly predicted symptom change (F4,746=17.18, P<.001; and β=-.26, P=.04). Moderate level of effort for attitudinal adherence also significantly predicted symptom change (F4,746=17.25, P<.001; and β=-.36, P=.03). Results differed in the initiators-only sample, such that none of the adherence measures significantly predicted symptom change (P=.09-.27). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the differential results of dose-response models testing adherence measures in predicting clinical outcomes. We summarize recommendations that might provide helpful guidance to future researchers and intervention developers aiming to investigate online intervention adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04361045; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04361045.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".