Testing the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Potential Efficacy of an Innovative Digital Mental Health Care Delivery Model Designed to Increase Access to Care: Open Trial of the Digital Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mental health concerns have become increasingly prevalent; however, care remains inaccessible to many. While digital mental health interventions offer a promising solution, self-help and even coached apps have not fully addressed the challenge. There is now a growing interest in hybrid, or blended, care approaches that use apps as tools to augment, rather than to entirely guide, care. The Digital Clinic is one such model, designed to increase access to high-quality mental health services. Objective To assess the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of the Digital Clinic model, this study aims to conduct a nonrandomized open trial with participants experiencing depression, anxiety, or both, at various levels of clinical severity. Methods Clinicians were trained in conducting brief transdiagnostic evidence-based treatment augmented by a mental health app (mindLAMP); digital navigators were trained in supporting participants’ app engagement and digital literacy while also sharing app data with both patients and clinicians. Feasibility and acceptability of this 8-week program were assessed against a range of benchmarks. Potential efficacy was assessed by calculating pre-post change in symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9), anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder; GAD-7), and comorbid depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale; PHQ-ADS), as well as rates of clinically meaningful improvement and remission. Secondary outcomes included change in functional impairment, self-efficacy in managing emotions, and flourishing. Results Of the 258 enrolled participants, 215 (83.3%) completed the 8-week program. Most were White (n=151, 70.2%) and identified as cisgender women (n=136, 63.3%), with a mean age of 41 (SD 14) years. Feasibility and acceptability were good to excellent across a range of domains. The program demonstrated potential efficacy: the average PHQ-9 score was moderate to moderately severe at baseline (mean 13.39, SD 4.53) and decreased to subclinical (mean 7.79, SD 4.61) by the end of the intervention (t126=12.50, P<.001, Cohen d=1.11). Similarly, the average GAD-7 score decreased from moderate at baseline (mean 12.93, SD 3.67) to subclinical (mean 7.35, SD 4.19) by the end of the intervention (t113=13, P<.001, Cohen d=1.22). Participation in the program was also associated with high rates of clinically significant improvement and remission. Conclusions Results suggest that the Digital Clinic model is feasible, acceptable, and potentially efficacious, warranting a future randomized controlled trial to establish the efficacy of this innovative model of care.
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 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".