MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416979154 · doi:10.2196/75290

Gender Differences in Trajectories of Depressive Symptoms Among Talkspace Clients: Naturalistic Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4416979154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meghan Romanelli, Julien Rouvere, Isaac Sanders, Aarthi Padmanabhan, Emily Peake, Thomas D. Hull, Tim Althoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsObservational studyDepressive symptomsPsychological interventionDepression (economics)Naturalistic observation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gender minority populations experience an increased risk of depression and report significant barriers to accessing mental health services. While digital mental health (DMH) technologies may address barriers, it remains unclear how gender minority clients engage with DMH services and if DMH improves their clinical outcomes. Objective: This naturalistic study explored gender differences in 15-week clinical outcomes of clients receiving technology-mediated psychotherapy from a large DMH provider. Methods: This study used observational data of clients who signed up for Talkspace (Talkspace, Inc) between February 2017 and July 2021. The analytic sample included Talkspace clients (N=20,156) with a baseline 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score ≥10. Participants completed at least 2 PHQ-8 assessments over 15 weeks of treatment. Multilevel linear models tested gender differences in depressive symptom trajectories over the course of treatment (model 1) while also controlling for baseline PHQ-8 scores (model 2) and treatment engagement indicators (model 3). Sensitivity analyses reestimated model 2 among clients who submitted a PHQ-8 survey during the week 15 assessment period and among those who discontinued treatment beforehand. Reasons for service cancellation were also described for the latter group. Gender differences in secondary clinical outcomes were examined via chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Results: In all models, there were significant week-by-gender interactions. When controlling for baseline PHQ-8 scores, rates of symptom change were significantly slower for gender-diverse participants (b=0.60; P<.001), nonbinary participants (b=0.81; P<.001), and transgender women (b=0.87; P=.007), but not for women (P=.98) or transgender men (P=.38) compared to men. By week 15, adjusted PHQ-8 scores declined 8.7 points for both men and women, versus 4.4-7.4 points for gender minority clients. Sensitivity analyses indicated attenuated symptom improvement among week-15 completers, with transgender women showing the slowest changes (b=0.76; P=.02). Among earlier dropouts, weekly symptom reductions were steep overall (eg, week 3: b=-4.06, P<.001; week 6: b=-2.31, P<.001) while certain gender minority subgroups worsened (eg, adjusted scores for transgender women increased from 15.41 at baseline to 16.08 at final week 3 PHQ-8 survey submissions). Cancellation data (3450/20,156, 17.12%) confirmed discontinuation reasons related to both symptom improvement (928/3691 reasons, 25.14%) and potential barriers to treatment engagement (eg, cost: 1431/3691, 38.77%; poor service fit or poor perceived effectiveness: 677/3691, 18.34%). Gender differences were observed in rates of treatment response (weeks 3-12; all P≤.02), symptom remission (weeks 3, 6, 9, and 15; all P≤.047), and clinically significant symptom reduction (all time points, all P≤.03). Symptom deterioration did not differ by gender (all P>.05). Conclusions: While clinical outcomes generally improved over time among clients engaged in technology-mediated psychotherapy, some gender minority populations experienced slower improvements. Future research may explore strategies to adapt DMH interventions to better meet the needs of diverse gender identities.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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 Formative Research→Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→