Feasibility trial of an unguided ultra-brief online psychological intervention within an online mental health clinic: The “things you do” intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This feasibility study evaluated the acceptability and effectiveness of the Things You Do (TYD) intervention within a routine online therapy clinic. The TYD intervention is an ultra-brief unguided online intervention targeting symptoms of depression and anxiety by promoting engagement in empirically supported thoughts and behaviors (actions). It is comprised of one lesson, two worksheets and automated daily email reminders for one month. In total, 73 out of 112 help-seeking individuals completed the TYD intervention after being enrolled, and of these 48 completed one or more assessments at 2-, 4- or 16-weeks follow-up. weeks. High rates of participant satisfaction were observed among 30 participants who completed the satisfaction questionnaire. Qualitative comments suggested participants valued the daily email reminders, practical techniques and accessible content but some participants found the intervention too short or generic. Linear mixed-effects models examining within-group changes found significant reductions in depression ( d = 0.80) and anxiety ( d = 0.65) from pre- to post-intervention, with effects maintained at follow-up. Participation in the intervention was significantly associated with increased engagement in adaptive behaviors ( d = 0.61), which, in turn, was linked to greater symptom improvement. Preliminary findings support the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of the TYD intervention as an accessible, ultra-brief unguided online intervention for anxiety and depression that may be valuable for some individuals seeking services from an online mental health clinic. Future research should explore its efficacy compared to control conditions among diverse populations and tailoring of content to participants.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".