The Efficacy of “Foundations,” a Digital Mental Health App to Improve Mental Well-being During COVID-19: Proof-of-Principle Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Against a long-term trend of increasing demand, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global rise in common mental disorders. Now more than ever, there is an urgent need for scalable, evidence-based interventions to support mental well-being. Objective The aim of this proof-of-principle study was to evaluate the efficacy of a mobile-based app in adults with self-reported symptoms of anxiety and stress in a randomized control trial that took place during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Methods Adults with mild to severe anxiety and moderate to high levels of perceived stress were randomized to either the intervention or control arm. Participants in the intervention arm were given access to the Foundations app for the duration of the 4-week study. All participants were required to self-report a range of validated measures of mental well-being (10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience scale [CD-RISC-10], 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7], Office of National Statistics Four Subjective Well-being Questions [ONS-4], World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index [WHO-5]) and sleep (Minimal Insomnia Scale [MISS]) at baseline and at weeks 2 and 4. The self-reported measures of perceived stress (10-item Perceived Stress Score [PSS-10]) were obtained weekly. Results A total of 136 participants completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The intervention group (n=62) showed significant improvements compared to the control group (n=74) on measures of anxiety, with a mean GAD-7 score change from baseline of –1.35 (SD 4.43) and –0.23 (SD 3.24), respectively (t134=1.71, P=.04); resilience, with a mean change in CD-RISC score of 1.79 (SD 4.08) and –0.31 (SD 3.16), respectively (t134=–3.37, P<.001); sleep, with a mean MISS score change of –1.16 (SD 2.67) and –0.26 (SD 2.29), respectively (t134=2.13, P=.01); and mental well-being, with a mean WHO-5 score change of 1.53 (SD 5.30) and –0.23 (SD 4.20), respectively (t134=–2.16, P=.02), within 2 weeks of using Foundations, with further improvements emerging at week 4. Perceived stress was also reduced within the intervention group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance relative to the control group, with a PSS score change from baseline to week 2 of –2.94 (SD 6.84) and –2.05 (SD 5.34), respectively (t134= 0.84, P=.20). Conclusions This study provides a proof of principle that the digital mental health app Foundations can improve measures of mental well-being, anxiety, resilience, and sleep within 2 weeks of use, with greater effects after 4 weeks. Foundations therefore offers potential as a scalable, cost-effective, and accessible solution to enhance mental well-being, even during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration OSF Registries osf.io/f6djb; https://osf.io/vm3xq
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".