Use and Engagement With Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Techniques Used Within an App to Support Worry Management: Content Analysis of Log Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Low-intensity cognitive behavioral therapy (LICBT) has been implemented by the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services across England to manage excessive worry associated with generalized anxiety disorder and support emotional well-being. However, barriers to access limit scalability. A solution has been to incorporate LICBT techniques derived from an evidence-based protocol within the Iona Mind Well-being app for Worry management (IMWW) with support provided through an algorithmically driven conversational agent. Objective This study aims to examine engagement with a mobile phone app to support worry management with specific attention directed toward interaction with specific LICBT techniques and examine the potential to reduce symptoms of anxiety. Methods Log data were examined with respect to a sample of “engaged” users who had completed at least 1 lesson related to the Worry Time and Problem Solving in-app modules that represented the “minimum dose.” Paired sample 2-tailed t tests were undertaken to examine the potential for IMWW to reduce worry and anxiety, with multivariate linear regressions examining the extent to which completion of each of the techniques led to reductions in worry and anxiety. Results There was good engagement with the range of specific LICBT techniques included within IMWW. The vast majority of engaged users were able to interact with the cognitive behavioral therapy model and successfully record types of worry. When working through Problem Solving, the conversational agent was successfully used to support the user with lower levels of engagement. Several users engaged with Worry Time outside of the app. Forgetting to use the app was the most common reason for lack of engagement, with features of the app such as completion of routine outcome measures and weekly reflections having lower levels of engagement. Despite difficulties in the collection of end point data, there was a significant reduction in severity for both anxiety (t53=5.5; P<.001; 95% CI 2.4-5.2) and low mood (t53=2.3; P=.03; 95% CI 0.2-3.3). A statistically significant linear model was also fitted to the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (F2,51=6.73; P<.001), while the model predicting changes in the Patient Health Questionnaire–8 did not reach significance (F2,51=2.33; P=.11). This indicates that the reduction in these measures was affected by in-app engagement with Worry Time and Problem Solving. Conclusions Engaged users were able to successfully interact with the LICBT-specific techniques informed by an evidence-based protocol although there were lower completion rates of routine outcome measures and weekly reflections. Successful interaction with the specific techniques potentially contributes to promising data, indicating that IMWW may be effective in the management of excessive worry. A relationship between dose and improvement justifies the use of log data to inform future developments. However, attention needs to be directed toward enhancing interaction with wider features of the app given that larger improvements were associated with greater engagement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".