MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210419052 · doi:10.2196/34330

Efficacy of a Web-Based Intervention for Depressive Disorders: Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Guided and Unguided Self-Help With Waitlist Control

2022· article· en· W4210419052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rico Krämer, Lea Köhne-Volland, Anna Schumacher, Stephan Köhler

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeck Depression InventoryRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Beck Anxiety InventoryIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyAnxietyRating scaleMedicinePsychological interventionPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Digital health apps are efficacious treatment options for mild-to-moderate depressive disorders. However, the extent to which psychological guidance increases the efficacy of these apps is controversial. Objective We evaluated the efficacy of a web-based intervention, called Selfapy, for unipolar depression. We also investigated differences between psychotherapist-guided and unguided versions. Methods Selfapy is a cognitive behavioral therapy–based intervention for depressive disorders. Participants with mild-to-severe depressive disorders were assigned randomly to participate in either guided (weekly 25-minute duration telephone calls) intervention, unguided version, or waiting list (control group) for 12 weeks. We assessed depressive symptoms at the start of the study, midway through the intervention (6 weeks), at the end of the intervention (12 weeks), and at follow-up (6 months). The main outcome was difference in the Beck Depression Inventory score between the start of the study and the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology—Self Report, the Hamilton Rating Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Results Of 401 participants, 301 participants (75.1%) completed the intervention. Changes in the Beck Depression Inventory from baseline differed significantly between groups at the postintervention (F2,398=37.20, P<.001). The reductions in scores for both guided and unguided intervention groups were greater than that for the control group, with large between-group effect sizes (guided vs control: d=1.63, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.93; unguided vs control: d=1.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73) at postintervention. No significant differences were found between guided and unguided intervention groups (P=.18). At follow-up (6 months), treatment effects on the primary outcome were maintained for both intervention groups (guided: F1,194=0.62, P>.999; unguided: F1,176=0.13, P>.999). Conclusions Both guided and unguided versions of the intervention were highly effective in reducing depressive symptoms. Follow-up data suggest that these effects could be maintained. The guided version was not superior to the unguided version. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017191; https://tinyurl.com/2p9h5hnx International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/s13063-021-05218-4

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207