Acceptability and Engagement of a Smartphone-Delivered Interpretation Bias Intervention in a Sample of Black and Latinx Adults: Open Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Access to evidence-based interventions is urgently required, especially for individuals of minoritized identities who experience unique barriers to mental health care. Digital mental health interventions have the potential to increase accessibility. Previous pilot studies testing HabitWorks, a smartphone app providing an interpretation bias intervention, have found strong engagement and adherence for HabitWorks; however, previous trials’ samples consisted of predominantly non-Hispanic, White individuals. Objective This study conducted an open trial of HabitWorks in a community sample of adults who identified as Black, Hispanic or Latinx, or both. This study aims to test safety, acceptability, and engagement with the HabitWorks app for Black and Latinx adults. Methods Black, Hispanic or Latinx adults (mean age 32.83, SD 11.06 y; 22/31, 71% women) who endorsed symptoms of anxiety or depression were asked to complete interpretation modification exercises via HabitWorks 3 times per week for 1 month. Interpretation bias and anxiety and depression symptoms were assessed at baseline and posttreatment assessments. Participants completed qualitative interviews to assess overall perceptions of HabitWorks. Results Of the 31 participants that downloaded the app, 27 (87%) used HabitWorks all 4 weeks. On average, participants completed 15.74 (SD 7.43) exercises out of the 12 prescribed, demonstrating high engagement. Acceptability ratings met all a priori benchmarks except for relevancy. Qualitative interviews also demonstrated high acceptability and few negative experiences. Significant improvements were found in interpretation style (t30=2.29; P<.001), with a large effect size (Cohen d=1.53); anxiety symptoms (t30=2.29; P=.03), with a small effect size (Cohen d=0.41); and depression symptoms (t30=3.065; P=.005), with a medium effect size (Cohen d=0.55). Conclusions This study adds to the literature evaluating digital mental health interventions in Black and Latinx adults. Preliminary results further support a future controlled trial testing the effectiveness of HabitWorks as an intervention.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".