MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410981032 · doi:10.2196/58943

Mobile-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Health Care Workers’ Mental Health in Ecuador: Quasi-Experimental Study

2025· article· en· W4410981032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra Ortega, Rubén Alvarado, Daniela Paulet Santamaría Guayaquil, Jade Pluas-Borja, Marco Faytong‐Haro

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMental healthHealth careCognitionPsychologyMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety, and burnout, have become increasingly prevalent among health care workers, who face high-stress environments, limited resources, and long working hours. The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified these issues, especially in regions like Latin America, where health care professionals experience heightened anxiety and depression. The urgent need for mental health support has prompted the development of mobile health (mHealth) solutions. These tools offer accessible, confidential interventions that help reduce stigma and encourage engagement. The "Psicovida" mobile app was designed to provide cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based activities tailored to health care workers, supporting them in managing stress, anxiety, and depression. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Psicovida, a mobile app that delivers CBT-based interventions, in reducing depressive symptoms and emotional distress among health care workers over a 3-month period. Methods: A quasi-experimental, nonrandomized controlled study was conducted with health care workers at a public hospital in Ecuador. Participants were recruited offline and assigned to either an intervention group that used the Psicovida app or a control group that received no intervention. The app provided weekly CBT-based tasks focused on stress management, cognitive restructuring, and emotional regulation. Data collection included demographic information, with mental health outcomes assessed pre- and postintervention using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to measure depression and the General Health Questionnaire-12 to assess overall psychological well-being. Results: A total of 211 health care workers participated, with 88 in the intervention group and 96 in the control group, and 29 participants dropped out. Among the intervention group, adherence varied: 34% (30/88) used the app consistently for 10-12 weeks, 42% (37/88) for 7-9 weeks, and 24% (21/88) for fewer than 6 weeks. Significant improvements in mental health outcomes were observed among app users. The intervention group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in depressive symptoms, with PHQ-9 scores decreasing significantly (P<.001; 95% CI 6.17-9.36). Within this group, 20% (18/88) achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores <5), 32% (28/88) showed mild symptoms (PHQ-9 scores=5-9), and 48% (42/88) remained in the range requiring treatment referral (PHQ-9 scores ≥10). General Health Questionnaire-12 scores similarly showed substantial improvement in psychological well-being (P<.001; 95% CI 3.99-5.58). Conclusions: The Psicovida mobile app demonstrates promise as an accessible, effective tool for reducing depression and anxiety among health care workers through CBT-based interventions. This study highlights the potential of mHealth technology to deliver targeted mental health support, especially in resource-limited settings. Future research should focus on evaluating long-term impacts and broader applications in varied health care environments.

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)0.004
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.430 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207