Patterns of Skills Review in Smartphone Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: Observational Study of Intervention Content Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphones could enhance access to effective cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Users may frequently and flexibly access bite-size CBT content on personal devices, review and practice skills, and thereby achieve better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We explored the distribution of actual interactions participants had with therapeutic content in a trial of smartphone CBT for depression and whether interactions were within assigned treatment modules or revisits to prior module content (ie, between-module interactions). METHODS: We examined the association between the number of within- and between-module interactions and baseline and end-of-treatment symptom severity during an 8-week, single-arm open trial of a therapist-guided CBT for depression mobile health app. RESULTS: Interactions were more frequent early in treatment and modestly declined in later stages. Within modules, most participants consistently made more interactions than required to progress to the next module and tended to return to all types of content rather than focus on 1 skill. By contrast, only 15 of 26 participants ever revisited prior module content (median number of revisits=1, mode=0, IQR 0-4). More revisits were associated with more severe end-of-treatment symptom severity after controlling for pretreatment symptom severity (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the frequency of use is an insufficient metric of engagement, lacking the nuance of what users are engaging with and when during treatment. This lens is essential for developing personalized recommendations and yielding better treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05386329; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05386329?term=NCT05386329.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".