Satisfaction and Acceptability Ratings of a Web-Based Self-help Intervention for Depression: Retrospective Cross-sectional Study From a Resource-Limited Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based interventions are at an early stage in non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries, where they remain scarce. Help for Depression (HDep) is one of the few unguided web-based interventions available in Latin America. The results of a use/usability analysis of the original version served as the basis for generating a more user-friendly second version. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore participants' satisfaction and acceptability for the second version of HDep. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional design was used. An email invitation to complete a web-based survey was sent to all people who accessed HDep in 2018. The questionnaire included satisfaction and acceptability scales and open-ended questions. Complete questionnaires were retrieved from 191 participants: 35.1% (67/191) from those who visited only the home page (home page users [HPUs]) and 6.47% (124/1916) from those who registered to use the program (program users [PUs]). RESULTS: In all groups, users experienced high levels of depressive symptoms (189/191, 98.9%; Center for Epidemiological Studies Scale-Depression >16). Moderate levels of satisfaction (HPUs: mean 21.9, SD 6.7; PUs: mean 21.1, SD 5.8; range: 8-32) and acceptability (HPUs: mean 13.8, SD 3.9; PUs: mean 13.9, SD 3.2; range: 5-20) were found in both groups. Logistic regression analyses showed that among HPUs, women were more satisfied with HDep (odds ratio [OR] 3.4, 95% CI 1.1-10.0), whereas among PUs, older respondents (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), those with paid work (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4-7.6), those who had not been in therapy (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.09-5.98), and those who had not attempted suicide (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.1-11.1) showed higher satisfaction. None of the sociodemographic/mental health variables distinguished the acceptability ratings among HPUs. Among PUs, those with paid work (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.5), those who had not been in therapy (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.3), those without disability (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.3-6.6), and those who had not attempted suicide (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.6) showed higher acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: HDep has good levels of satisfaction and acceptability for approximately half of its users, and the information provided by respondents suggested feasible ways to remedy some of the deficiencies. This qualitative-quantitative study from a low- to middle-income, non-English-speaking country adds to existing knowledge regarding acceptance and satisfaction with web-based interventions for depression in resource-limited countries. This information is important for the creation and adaptation of web-based interventions in low- and middle-income countries, where access to treatment is a major concern, and web-based prevention and treatment programs can help deliver evidence-based alternatives. It is necessary to document the pitfalls, strengths, and challenges of such interventions in this context. Understanding how users perceive an intervention might suggest modifications to increase adherence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".