Adherence and Engagement With a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Conversational Agent (Wysa for Chronic Pain) Among Adults With Chronic Pain: Survival Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital applications are commonly used to support mental health and well-being. However, successfully retaining and engaging users to complete digital interventions is challenging, and comorbidities such as chronic pain further reduce user engagement. Digital conversational agents (CAs) may improve user engagement by applying engagement principles that have been implemented within in-person care settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate user retention and engagement with an artificial intelligence-led digital mental health app (Wysa for Chronic Pain) that is customized for individuals managing mental health symptoms and coexisting chronic pain. METHODS: In this ancillary survival analysis of a clinical trial, participants included 51 adults who presented to a tertiary care center for chronic musculoskeletal pain, who endorsed coexisting symptoms of depression or anxiety (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System score of ≥55 for depression or anxiety), and initiated onboarding to an 8-week subscription of Wysa for Chronic Pain. The study outcomes were user retention, defined as revisiting the app each week and on the last day of engagement, and user engagement, defined by the number of sessions the user completed. RESULTS: Users engaged in a cumulative mean of 33.3 sessions during the 8-week study period. The survival analysis depicted a median user retention period (i.e., time to complete disengagement) of 51 days, with the usage of a morning check-in feature having a significant relationship with a longer retention period (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that user retention and engagement with a CBT-based CA built for users with chronic pain is higher than standard industry metrics. These results have clear implications for addressing issues of suboptimal engagement of digital health interventions and improving access to care for chronic pain. Future work should use these findings to inform the design of evidence-based interventions for individuals with chronic pain and to enhance user retention and engagement of digital health interventions more broadly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04640090; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04640090.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".