MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290190684 · doi:10.2196/37968

A Digital Mental Health Intervention (Inuka) for Common Mental Health Disorders in Zimbabwean Adults in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Feasibility and Acceptability Pilot Study

2022· article· en· W4290190684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jermaine M. Dambi, Clara Norman, Asmae Doukani, Stephan Potgieter, Jean Turner, Rosemary Musesengwa, Ruth Verhey, Dixon Chibanda

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAchmea
KeywordsMental healthmHealthPsychological interventionThematic analysisDigital healthTelemedicineMedicinePsychologyHealth careQualitative researchPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Common mental health disorders (CMDs) are leading causes of disability globally. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the burden of CMDs. COVID-19 containment measures, including lockdowns, have disrupted access to in-person mental health care. It is therefore imperative to explore the utility of digital mental health interventions to bridge the treatment gap. Mobile health technologies are effective tools for increasing access to treatment at a lower cost. This study explores the utility of Inuka, a chat-based app hinged on the Friendship Bench problem-solving therapy intervention. The Inuka app offers double anonymity, and clients can book or cancel a session at their convenience. Inuka services can be accessed either through a mobile app or the web. Objective We aimed to explore the feasibility of conducting a future clinical trial. Additionally, we evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, scalability, and preliminary effectiveness of Inuka. Methods Data were collected using concurrent mixed methods. We used a pragmatic quasiexperimental design to compare the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary clinical effectiveness of Inuka (experimental group) and WhatsApp chat-based counseling (control). Participants received 6 problem-solving therapy sessions delivered by lay counselors. A reduction in CMDs was the primary clinical outcome. The secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), disability and functioning, and social support. Quantitative outcomes were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Finally, we used administrative data and semistructured interviews to gather data on acceptability and feasibility; this was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Altogether, 258 participants were screened over 6 months, with 202 assessed for eligibility, and 176 participants were included in the study (recruitment ratio of 29 participants/month). The participants’ mean age was 24.4 (SD 5.3) years, and most participants were female and had tertiary education. The mean daily smartphone usage was 8 (SD 3.5) hours. Eighty-three users signed up and completed at least one session. The average completion rate was 3 out of 4 sessions. Inuka was deemed feasible and acceptable in the local context, with connectivity challenges, app instability, expensive mobile data, and power outages cited as potential barriers to scale up. Generally, there was a decline in CMDs (F2,73=2.63; P=.08), depression (F2,73=7.67; P<.001), and anxiety (F2,73=2.95; P=.06) and a corresponding increase in HRQoL (F2,73=7.287; P<.001) in both groups. Conclusions Study outcomes showed that it is feasible to run a future large-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) and lend support to the feasibility and acceptability of Inuka, including evidence of preliminary effectiveness. The app’s double anonymity and structured support were the most salient features. There is a great need for iterative app updates before scaling up. Finally, a large-scale hybrid RCT with a longer follow-up to evaluate the clinical implementation and cost-effectiveness of the app is needed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.476
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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207