Digital Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Older Adults with symptoms of depression: a feasibility study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are common among older adults and can significantly impact their quality of life. However, many older adults face barriers to accessing psychological treatment. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) is a promising alternative to face-to-face treatments, but its feasibility among older adults has been less extensively studied than in adult populations. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the feasibility of guided iCBT for adults aged 55 years and older with mild to moderate depressive symptoms recruited from the general population. METHODS: This study is a feasibility study with a single-group, pretest-posttest design (n=21), in which all participants received guided iCBT for 8 weeks. Assessments were conducted at baseline (T0) and after the intervention (T1). The primary outcome was feasibility, conceptualized as satisfaction, usability, engagement, and uptake of iCBT. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity, working alliance, and technical alliance. RESULTS: Participants were mostly highly educated (13/21, 61.9%), female (18/21, 85.7%), had an average age of 59.85 (SD 4.19; range 55-68) years, and reported moderate digital literacy. Feasibility outcomes indicated high satisfaction and engagement and moderate usability. Working alliance was rated as good by both participants and coaches, and technical alliance was rated as moderate by the participants. There was a nonsignificant modest decrease in depressive symptoms (Cohen d=0.47). Of the 20 participants who started the intervention, all completed the first 2 modules, but completion declined across the remaining 6 modules, with only 1 (5%) participant completing all modules. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that guided iCBT has the potential to be a feasible option for older adults experiencing depressive symptoms, with participants reporting generally positive satisfaction, moderate engagement, and a moderate therapeutic bond with their coaches. However, below-average usability ratings and a moderate technical alliance suggest that some aspects of the platform require improvement. Future research should focus on improving usability and adherence, as well as testing the intervention in a larger and more diverse population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".