MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204267868 · doi:10.2196/26712

The Functionality of Mobile Apps for Anxiety: Systematic Search and Analysis of Engagement and Tailoring Features

2021· article· en· W3204267868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andreas Balaskas, Stephen M. Schueller, Anna L. Cox, Gavin Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrinity College DublinEuropean Regional Development FundScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsAnxietyPersonalizationCognitive behavioral therapyModalitiesmHealthCognitionComputer sciencePsychological interventionPsychologyWorld Wide WebPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A range of mobile apps for anxiety have been developed in response to the high prevalence of anxiety disorders. Although the number of publicly available apps for anxiety is increasing, attrition rates among mobile apps are high. These apps must be engaging and relevant to end users to be effective; thus, engagement features and the ability to tailor delivery to the needs of individual users are key. However, our understanding of the functionality of these apps concerning engagement and tailoring features is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review how cognitive behavioral elements are delivered by anxiety apps and their functionalities to support user engagement and tailoring based on user needs. METHODS: A systematic search for anxiety apps described as being based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was conducted on Android and iPhone marketplaces. Apps were included if they mentioned the use of CBT for anxiety-related disorders. We identified 597 apps, of which 36 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed through direct use. RESULTS: Cognitive behavioral apps for anxiety incorporate a variety of functionalities, offer several engagement features, and integrate low-intensity CBT exercises. However, the provision of features to support engagement is highly uneven, and support is provided only for low-intensity CBT treatment. Cognitive behavioral elements combine various modalities to deliver intervention content and support the interactive delivery of these elements. Options for personalization are limited and restricted to goal selection upon beginning use or based on self-monitoring entries. Apps do not appear to provide individualized content to users based on their input. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement and tailoring features can be significantly expanded in existing apps, which make limited use of social features and clinical support and do not use sophisticated features such as personalization based on sensor data. To guide the evolution of these interventions, further research is needed to explore the effectiveness of different types of engagement features and approaches to tailoring therapeutic content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207