Online Support and Intervention for Child Anxiety (OSI): Development and Usability Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet-based treatments for child anxiety may help to increase access to evidence-based therapies; however, user engagement, uptake, and adherence within routine clinical practice remain as challenges. Involving the intended end users in the development process through user-centered design and usability testing is crucial for maximizing user engagement and adoption of internet-based treatments, but so far this has been lacking for internet-based treatments for child anxiety. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop an internet-based treatment for child anxiety through a process of user-centered design (phase 1) and usability testing (phase 2), based on an existing evidence-based, face-to-face, therapist-supported, parent-led cognitive behavioral therapy intervention. It is intended that the internet-based version of this treatment would consist of a parent website, case management system for clinicians, and mobile game app for children. METHODS: Parents, children, and clinicians who were familiar with the face-to-face version of the treatment were recruited from 2 National Health Service clinics. In phase 1, participants participated in 3 workshops to gain feedback on the overall concept, explore their wants and needs for the websites and game, generate ideas on how the treatment may look, and gain feedback on initial mock-ups of the websites and game. In phase 2, participants attended 3 individual usability testing sessions where they were presented with working prototypes of the website or game and asked to perform a series of tasks on the website (parents and clinicians) or play the game (children). The frequency and details on usability errors were recorded. Participants were asked for their feedback on the website and game using a standardized usability questionnaire and semistructured interviews. The websites and game were iterated after each round of usability testing in response to this feedback. RESULTS: In phase 1, participants approved the general concept and rated the initial mock-ups of the website and game positively. In phase 2, working prototypes were rated positively and usability errors declined across the iterations and were mainly cosmetic or minor issues relating to esthetic preference, with few issues regarding ability to navigate the website or technical issues affecting functionality. Feedback from the semistructured interviews further supported the positive response of participants to the website and game, and helped identify areas for improvement during the iteration process. The final iteration of the website and game are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Taking an iterative approach to development through user-centered design and usability testing has resulted in an internet-based treatment for child anxiety (Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety) that appears to meet the needs and expectations of the intended users (parents, children, and clinicians) and is easy and enjoyable to use.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".