Inclusion of Individuals With Lived Experiences in the Development of a Digital Intervention for Co-Occurring Depression and Cannabis Use: Mixed Methods Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing interventions for co-occurring depression and cannabis use often do not treat both disorders simultaneously and can result in higher rates of symptom relapse. Traditional in-person interventions are often difficult to obtain due to financial and time limitations, which may further prevent individuals with co-occurring depression and cannabis use from receiving adequate treatment. Digital interventions can increase the scalability and accessibility for these individuals, but few digital interventions exist to treat both disorders simultaneously. Targeting transdiagnostic processes of these disorders with a digital intervention-specifically positive valence system dysfunction-may yield improved access and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Recent research has highlighted a need for the inclusion of individuals with lived experiences to assist in the co-design of interventions to enhance scalability and relevance of an intervention. Thus, the purpose of this study is to describe the process of eliciting feedback from individuals with elevated depressed symptoms and cannabis use and co-designing a digital intervention, Amplification of Positivity-Cannabis Use Disorder (AMP-C), focused on improving positive valence system dysfunction in these disorders. METHODS: Ten individuals who endorsed moderate to severe depressive symptoms and regular cannabis use (2-3×/week) were recruited online via Meta ads. Using a mixed methods approach, participants completed a 1-hour mixed methods interview over Zoom (Zoom Technologies Inc) where they gave their feedback and suggestions for the development of a mental health app, based on an existing treatment targeting positive valence system dysfunction, for depressive symptoms and cannabis use. The qualitative approach allowed for a broader investigation of participants' wants and needs regarding the engagement and scalability of AMP-C, and the quantitative approach allowed for specific ratings of intervention components to be potentially included. RESULTS: Participants perceived the 13 different components of AMP-C as overall helpful (mean 3.9-4.4, SD 0.5-1.1) and interesting (mean 4.0-4.9, SD 0.3-1.1) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). They gave qualitative feedback for increasing engagement in the app, including adding a social component, using notifications, and being able to track their symptoms and progress over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of including individuals with lived experiences in the development of interventions, including digital interventions. This inclusion resulted in valuable feedback and suggestions for improving the proposed digital intervention targeting the positive valence system, AMP-C, to better match the wants and needs of individuals with depressive symptoms and cannabis use.
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 | 0.040 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".