MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409912521 · doi:10.2196/50006

An App-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program Tailored for College Students: Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4409912521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Hee Kim, Yeon-Kug Moon, Kyong‐Mee Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintRandomized controlled trialPsychologyMedicineMedical educationPhysical therapyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Technology-based cognitive behavioral therapy programs are accessible interventions to address mental health challenges, particularly among college students. Despite their potential, low adherence rates remain a key challenge. Objective: This study aims to assess the effects of the tailored content and gamification elements of the Mind Booster Green program on reducing depressive symptoms and improving college life adjustment. Methods: A randomized, unblinded controlled trial was conducted among college students. All study procedures were conducted remotely using web-based tools. The participants were randomly assigned to the intervention or waitlist control groups. The intervention group used Mind Booster Green, an app-based self-help cognitive behavioral therapy program for 1 month. The program included tailored case stories and gamification elements, such as point and level systems, to enhance user engagement and adherence. Outcomes were self-assessed using web-based questionnaires and included changes in depressive symptoms, college life adjustment, and negative and positive automatic thoughts. The usability of the app was also evaluated. Outcomes were measured at 3 time points: preintervention, postintervention, and at a 2-month follow-up (F/U), using validated and standardized tools. Results: A total of 170 individuals (mean age 22.60, SD 3.37 years; 136/170, 80% female) participated in the study. A chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups at baseline in terms of age, sex, or class year (P>.05). A generalized estimating equation analysis revealed significant time×group interactions for all variables. Compared to the control group, the intervention group showed greater improvements across all outcomes, with between-group effect sizes ranging from -0.78 to 0.49. For derpessive symptoms, large within-group effect size were observed (Patient Health Questionnaire-9: pre to post, Cohen d=1.12; pre to F/U, Cohen d=1.15; Beck Depression Inventory-II: pre to post, Cohen d=0.90; pre to F/U, Cohen d=1.04). Large within-group effect size was also found for adjustment to college life (Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire-Revised: pre to post, Cohen d=-0.87; pre to F/U, Cohen d=-0.85), and moderate effect for negative automatic thoughts (Automatic Thought Questionnaire-Negative, Short Form: pre to post, Cohen d=0.36; pre to F/U, Cohen d=0.58) and positive automatic thoughts (Automatic Thought Questionnaire-Positive, Short Form: pre to post, Cohen d=-0.45; pre to F/U, Cohen d=-0.44). Adherence rates were 89% and 99% for the intervention and control groups, respectively. The usability test results, assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale, showed an overall score of 3.88, with scores above the medium level in the engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality categories. Conclusions: Mind Booster Green demonstrated substantial potential as a complementary interventio to traditional psychological services for college students, providing a cost-effective and scalable solution for mental health issues. Future research should explore the applicability of this program in diverse populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.450 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→