The Effect of a Digital Mental Health Program on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms: Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based digital health programs have shown efficacy in being primary tools to improve emotional and mental health, as well as offering supplementary support to individuals undergoing psychotherapy for anxiety, depression, and other mental health disorders. However, information is lacking about the dose response to digital mental health interventions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the effect of time in program and program usage on symptom change among individuals enrolled in a real-world comprehensive digital mental health program (myStrength) who are experiencing severe anxiety or depression. METHODS: Eligible participants (N=18,626) were adults aged 18 years and older who were enrolled in myStrength for at least four weeks as part of their employee wellness benefit program, who completed baseline, the 2-week, 2-month, and 6-month surveys querying symptoms of anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]). Linear growth curve models were used to analyze the effect of average weekly program usage on subsequent GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores for participants with scores indicating severe anxiety (GAD-7≥15) or depression (PHQ-9≥15). All models were adjusted for baseline score and demographics. RESULTS: Participants in the study (N=1519) were 77.4% female (1176/1519), had a mean age of 45 years (SD 14 years), and had an average enrollment time of 3 months. At baseline, participants reported an average of 9.39 (SD 6.04) on the GAD-7 and 11.0 (SD 6.6) on the PHQ-9. Those who reported 6-month results had an average of 8.18 (SD 6.15) on the GAD-7 and 9.18 (SD 6.79) on the PHQ-9. Participants with severe scores (n=506) experienced a significant improvement of 2.97 (SE 0.35) and 3.97 (SE 0.46) at each time point for anxiety and depression, respectively (t=-8.53 and t=-8.69, respectively; Ps<.001). Those with severe baseline scores also saw a reduction of 0.27 (SE 0.08) and 0.25 (SE 0.09) points in anxiety and depression, respectively, for each additional program activity per week (t=-3.47 and t=-2.66, respectively; Ps<.05). CONCLUSIONS: For participants with severe baseline scores, the study found a clinically significant reduction of approximately 9 points for anxiety and 12 points for depression after 6 months of enrollment, suggesting that interventions targeting mental health must maintain active, ongoing engagement when symptoms are present and be available as a continuous resource to maximize clinical impact, specifically in those experiencing severe anxiety or depression. Moreover, a dosing effect was shown, indicating improvement in outcomes among participants who engaged with the program every other day for both anxiety and depression. This suggests that digital mental health programs that provide both interesting and evidence-based activities could be more successful in further improving mental health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".