Evaluating the Effectiveness of InsightApp for Anxiety, Valued Action, and Psychological Resilience: Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent mental disorders, and stress plays a significant role in their development. Ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) hold great potential to help people manage stress and anxiety by training emotion regulation and coping skills in real-life settings. InsightApp is a gamified EMI and research tool that incorporates elements from evidence-based therapeutic approaches. It is designed to strengthen people’s metacognitive skills for coping with challenging real-life situations and embracing anxiety and other emotions. Objective This randomized controlled trial aims to examine the effectiveness of InsightApp in (1) improving individuals’ metacognitive strategies for coping with stress and anxiety and (2) promoting value-congruent action. It also evaluates how long these effects are retained. This experiment advances our understanding of the role of metacognition in emotional and behavioral reactivity to stress. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 228 participants (completion rate: n=197, 86.4%; mean age 38, SD 11.50 years; age range 20-80 years; female: n=101, 52.6%; and White: n=175, 91.1%), who were randomly assigned to either the treatment or the active placebo control group. During the 1-week intervention phase, the treatment group engaged with InsightApp, while participants in the control group interacted with a placebo version of the app that delivered executive function training. We assessed the differences between the 2 groups in posttest and follow-up assessments of mental health and well-being while controlling for preexisting differences. Moreover, we used a multilevel model to analyze the longitudinal data, focusing on the within-participant causal effects of the intervention on emotional and behavioral reactivity to daily stressors. Specifically, we measured daily anxiety, struggle with anxiety, and value-congruent action. Results The intervention delivered by InsightApp yielded mixed results. On one hand, we found no significant posttest scores on mental health and well-being measures directly after the intervention or 7 days later (all P>.22). In contrast, when confronted with real-life stress, the treatment group experienced a 15% lower increase in anxiety (1-tailed t test, t197=–2.4; P=.009) and a 12% lower increase in the struggle with anxiety (t197=–1.87; P=.031) than the control group. Furthermore, individuals in the treatment group demonstrated a 7% higher tendency to align their actions with their values compared to the control group (t197=3.23; P=.002). After the intervention period, InsightApp’s positive effects on the struggle with anxiety in reaction to stress were sustained, and increased to an 18% lower reactivity to stress (t197=–2.84; P=.002). Conclusions As our study yielded mixed results, further studies are needed to obtain an accurate and reliable understanding of the effectiveness of InsightApp. Overall, our findings tentatively suggest that guiding people to apply adaptive metacognitive strategies for coping with real-life stress daily with a gamified EMI is a promising approach that deserves further evaluation. Trial Registration OSF Registries osf.io/k3b5d; https://osf.io/k3b5d
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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".