An Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program for Anxiety and Depression (Tranquility): Adaptation Co-design and Fidelity Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) is a necessary step toward increasing the accessibility of mental health services. Yet, few iCBT programs have been evaluated for their fidelity to the therapeutic principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usability standards. In addition, many existing iCBT programs do not include treatments targeting both anxiety and depression, which are commonly co-occurring conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the usability of Tranquility-a novel iCBT program for anxiety-and its fidelity to CBT principles. This study also aims to engage in a co-design process to adapt Tranquility to include treatment elements for depression. METHODS: CBT experts (n=6) and mental health-informed peers (n=6) reviewed the iCBT program Tranquility. CBT experts assessed Tranquility's fidelity to CBT principles and were asked to identify necessary interventions for depression by using 2 simulated client case examples. Mental health-informed peers engaged in 2 co-design focus groups to discuss adaptations to the existing anxiety program and the integration of interventions for depression. Both groups completed web-based surveys assessing the usability of Tranquility and the likelihood that they would recommend the program. RESULTS: The CBT experts' mean rating of Tranquility's fidelity to CBT principles was 91%, indicating a high fidelity to CBT. Further, 5 out of 6 CBT experts and all mental health-informed peers (all participants: 11/12, 88%) rated Tranquility as satisfactory, indicating that they may recommend Tranquility to others, and they rated its usability highly (mean 76.56, SD 14.07). Mental health-informed peers provided suggestions on how to leverage engagement with Tranquility (eg, adding incentives and notification control). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated the strong fidelity of Tranquility to CBT and usability standards. The results highlight the importance of involving stakeholders in the co-design process and future opportunities to increase engagement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".