The Effect of Predicted Compliance With a Web-Based Intervention for Anxiety and Depression Among Latin American University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based cognitive behavioral therapy (wb-CBT) is a scalable way to reach distressed university students. Guided wb-CBT is typically superior to self-guided wb-CBT over short follow-up periods, but evidence is less clear over longer periods. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare short-term (3 months) and longer-term (12 months) aggregate effects of guided and self-guided wb-CBT versus treatment as usual (TAU) in a randomized controlled trial of Colombian and Mexican university students and carry out an initially unplanned secondary analysis of the role of differential predicted compliance in explaining these differences. METHODS: The 1319 participants, recruited either through email and social media outreach invitations or from waiting lists of campus mental health clinics, were undergraduates (1038/1319, 78.7% female) with clinically significant baseline anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 score≥10) or depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score≥10). The intervention arms comprised guided wb-CBT with weekly asynchronous written human feedback, self-guided wb-CBT with the same content as the guided modality, and TAU as provided at each university. The prespecified primary outcome was joint remission (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 score=0-4 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score=0-4). The secondary outcome was joint symptom reduction (mean scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale) at 3 and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: =10.5, P=.001). Subgroup analysis showed that this longer-term superiority of self-guided wb-CBT was confined to the 40% (528/1319) of participants with high predicted self-guided wb-CBT compliance beyond 3 months based on a counterfactual nested cross-validated machine learning model. The 12-month outcome differences were nonsignificant across arms among other participants (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results have important practical implications for precision intervention targeting to maximize longer-term wb-CBT benefits. Future research needs to investigate strategies to increase sustained guided wb-CBT use once guidance ends. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04780542; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04780542. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-022-06255-3.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".