MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214503258 · doi:10.2196/33473

Web-Based Single Session Intervention for Perceived Control Over Anxiety During COVID-19: Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4214503258 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael C Mullarkey, Mallory Dobias, Jenna Sung, Isaac Ahuvia, Jason Shumake, Christopher G. Beevers, Jessica L. Schleider

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAnxietyPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Randomized controlled trialClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Social distancePsychologyStressorExposure therapyMental healthMedicinePsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is rising across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, and social distancing mandates preclude in-person mental health care. Greater perceived control over anxiety has predicted decreased anxiety pathology, including adaptive responses to uncontrollable stressors. Evidence suggests that no-therapist, single-session interventions can strengthen perceived control over emotions like anxiety; similar programs, if designed for the COVID-19 context, could hold substantial public health value. OBJECTIVE: Our registered report evaluated a no-therapist, single-session, online intervention targeting perceived control over anxiety in the COVID-19 context against a placebo intervention encouraging handwashing. We tested whether the intervention could (1) decrease generalized anxiety and increase perceived control over anxiety and (2) achieve this without decreasing social-distancing intentions. METHODS: We tested these questions using a between-subjects design in a weighted-probability sample of US adults recruited via a closed online platform (ie, Prolific). All outcomes were indexed via online self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 522 randomized individuals, 500 (95.8%) completed the baseline survey and intervention. Intent-to-treat analyses using all randomized participants (N=522) found no support for therapeutic or iatrogenic effects; effects on generalized anxiety were d=-0.06 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.15; P=.48), effects on perceived control were d=0.04 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.16; P=.48), and effects on social-distancing intentions were d=-0.02 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.19; P=.83). CONCLUSIONS: Strengths of this study included a large, nationally representative sample and adherence to open science practices. Implications for scalable interventions, including the challenge of targeting perceived control over anxiety, are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04459455; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04459455.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207