MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394720832 · doi:10.1177/07067437241245331

A Randomized Evaluation of MoodFX, a Patient-Centred e-Health Tool to Support Outcome Measurement for Depression: Une évaluation randomisée de MoodFX, un outil de santé en ligne centré sur le patient pour soutenir la mesure du résultat dans la dépression.

2024· article· en· W4394720832 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Victor W. Li, Jaspreet Sahota, Deea K Dev, Dib D. Gill, Vanessa Evans, Auby Axler, Trisha Chakrabarty, André Do, Kamyar Keramatian, John-Jose Nuñez, Edwin M. Tam, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Erin E. Michalak, Jill Murphy, Raymond W. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHealthy Minds Canada
KeywordsMedicineUsabilityPatient Health QuestionnaireRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Quality of life (healthcare)System usability scalePhysical therapyPsychiatryDepressive symptomsAnxietyWeb usabilityNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: e-Health tools using validated questionnaires to assess outcomes may facilitate measurement-based care for psychiatric disorders. MoodFX was created as a free online symptom tracker to support patients for outcome measurement in their depression treatment. We conducted a pilot randomized evaluation to examine its usability, and clinical utility. METHODS: Patients presenting with a major depressive episode (within a major depressive or bipolar disorder) were randomly assigned to receive either MoodFX or a health information website as the intervention and control condition, respectively, with follow-up assessment surveys conducted online at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months. The primary usability outcomes included the percentage of patients with self-reported use of MoodFX 3 or more times during follow up (indicating minimally adequate usage) and usability measures based on the System Usability Scale (SUS). Secondary clinical outcomes included the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Self-Rated (QIDS-SR) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Forty-nine participants were randomized (24 to MoodFX and 25 to the control condition). Of the 23 participants randomized to MoodFX who completed the user survey, 18 (78%) used MoodFX 3 or more times over the 6 months of the study. The mean SUS score of 72.7 (65th-69th percentile) represents good usability. Compared to the control group, the MoodFX group had significantly better improvement on QIDS-SR and PHQ-9 scores, with large effect sizes and higher response rates at 6 months. There were no differences between conditions on other secondary outcomes such as functioning and quality of life. CONCLUSION: MoodFX demonstrated good usability and was associated with reduction in depressive symptoms. This pilot study supports the use of digital tools in depression treatment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→