Efficacy of the mHealth App Intellect in Improving Subclinical Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial With a 4-Week Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is the third most prevalent mental health disorder in Singapore, with a high degree of burden and large treatment gaps. Self-guided programs on mobile apps are accessible and affordable interventions, with the potential to address subclinical OCD before symptoms escalate. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial aimed to examine the efficacy of a self-guided OCD program on the mobile health (mHealth) app Intellect in improving subclinical OCD and maladaptive perfectionism (MP) as a potential moderator of this predicted relationship. METHODS: University students (N=225) were randomly assigned to an 8-day, self-guided app program on OCD (intervention group) or cooperation (active control). Self-reported measures were obtained at baseline, after the program, and at a 4-week follow-up. The primary outcome measure was OCD symptom severity (Obsessive Compulsive Inventory-Revised [OCI-R]). Baseline MP was assessed as a potential moderator. Depression, anxiety, and stress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales-21) were controlled for during statistical analyses. RESULTS: =0.021; P=.044). A significant, weak positive correlation was found between MP and OCI-R levels at baseline (r=0.28; P<.001). MP was not found to moderate the relationship between condition and OCI-R scores at postintervention (P=.70) and at 4-week follow-up (P=.88). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the self-guided OCD program on the Intellect app is effective in reducing subclinical OCD among university students in Singapore. Future studies should include longer follow-up durations and study MP as a moderator in a broader spectrum of OCD symptom severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06202677; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06202677.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".