MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380685292 · doi:10.2196/46326

Effectiveness of an Internet-Based Self-Guided Program to Treat Depression in a Sample of Brazilian Users: Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4380685292 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rodrigo da Cunha Teixeira Lopes, Gustavo Chapetta da Rocha, Maria Adriana Svacina, Björn Meyer, Dajana Šipka, Thomas Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionDepression (economics)Clinical psychologySelf-efficacyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depression is undertreated in Brazil. Deprexis is a self-guided internet-based program used to treat depressive symptoms based on empirically supported integrative and cognitive behavioral therapy. Evidence from a meta-analysis supports Deprexis' efficacy in German-speaking countries and the United States, but no study has been conducted using this program in countries with low literacy rates and large social disparities. Furthermore, few studies have investigated whether internet-based interventions ameliorate the psychological processes that might underlie depressive symptomatology, such as low perceived self-efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to replicate in Brazil previously reported effects of Deprexis on depressive symptom reduction. Therefore, the main research question was whether Deprexis is effective in reducing depressive symptoms and the general psychological state in Brazilian users with moderate and severe depression in comparison with a control group that does not receive access to Deprexis. A secondary research question was whether the use of Deprexis affects perceptions of self-efficacy. METHODS: We interviewed 312 participants recruited over the internet and randomized 189 participants with moderate to severe depression (according to the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and a semistructured interview) to an intervention condition (treatment as usual plus immediate access to Deprexis for 90 days, n=94) or to a control condition (treatment as usual and delayed access to Deprexis, after 8 weeks, n=95). RESULTS: Participants from the immediate access group logged in at Deprexis an average of 14.81 (SD 12.16) times. The intention-to-treat analysis using a linear mixed model showed that participants who received Deprexis improved significantly more than participants assigned to the delayed access control group on the primary depression self-assessment measure (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Cohen d=0.80; P<.001) and secondary outcomes, such as general psychological state measure (Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measurement; Cohen d=0.82; P<.001) and the perceived self-efficacy measure (Cohen d=0.63; P<.001). The intention-to-treat analyses showed that 21% (20/94) of the participants achieved remission compared with 7% (7/95) in the control group (P<.001). The deterioration rates were lower in the immediate access control group. The dropout rate was high, but no differences in demographic and clinical variables were found. Participants reported a medium to high level of satisfaction with Deprexis. CONCLUSIONS: These results replicate previous findings by showing that Deprexis can facilitate symptomatic improvement over 3 months in depressed samples of Brazilian users. From a public health perspective, this is important information to expand the reach of internet-based interventions for those who really need them, especially in countries with less access to mental health care. This extends previous research by showing significant effects on perceived self-efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clíncos (ReBec) RBR-6kk3bx UTN U1111-1212-8998; https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-6kk3bx/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1590/1516-4446-2019-0582.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.447 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207