Testing Behavioral Nudges and Prompts in Digital Courses for the Self-guided Treatment of Depression and Anxiety: Protocol for a 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite showing strong evidence of positive outcomes, a common problem in the field of digital health is poor engagement and adherence. Non-health care, for-profit digital ventures, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, conduct behavioral experiments to increase user engagement. To our knowledge, digital health organizations have not published similar types of experiments in ad libitum environments, and there are limited published data indicating whether nudges and prompts can be leveraged to increase engagement with digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of our 3-arm randomized controlled trial is to test whether registered members in two well-established digital health courses for anxiety and depression will engage with four different types of nudges and prompts, and whether engaging with nudges and prompts increases engagement within the courses. METHODS: New members who register for the self-guided anxiety and depression courses on the Evolution Health platform will be randomized into 1 of 3 arms. The first control arm will feature a member home page without any behavioral nudges or prompts. The second arm will feature a member home page with a Tip-of-the-Day section containing directive content. Arm 3 will feature a member home page with a Tip-of-the-Day section containing social proof and present bias content. The third arm will also feature a to-do item checklist. RESULTS: The experiment was designed in August 2021 and was launched in November 2021. Initially, we will measure engagement with the tips and the to-do checklist by calculating the frequency of use by age and gender. If members do engage, we will then, according to age and gender, examine whether nudges and prompts result in higher course completion rates and whether specific types of prompts and nudges are more popular than others. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3-arm randomized controlled trial will be the first to compare four distinct types of behavioral prompts and nudges in two self-guided digital health courses that were designed to treat mental health issues. We expect the results to generate insights into which types of behavioral prompts and nudges work best in the population. If they are shown to increase engagement, the insights will then be used to apply prompts and nudges to the platform's addiction-focused courses. Based on the results of the experiment, the insights will be applied to using artificial intelligence to train the platform to recognize different usage patterns and provide specific engagement recommendations to stratified users. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37231.
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 | 0.046 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.017 |
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".