Cited by 78Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

Pilot Randomized Trial of a Self-Help Behavioral Activation Mobile App for Utilization in Primary Care

Open access
Dahne, Jennifer, Lejuez, C.W., Diaz, Vanessa A., Player, Marty S., Kustanowitz, Jacob, Felton, Julia W., Carpenter, Matthew J.·2019·Behavior Therapy

Abstract

Mobile technologies can be leveraged to meet the need for evidence-based psychological depression treatment via primary care. The purpose of the present study was to preliminarily examine the feasibility and efficacy of a self-help brief behavioral activation mobile application (app; "Moodivate") for depressive symptoms among adults treated via primary care. Participants (N = 52) were recruited from primary care practices between January and December 2017 and were randomized 2:2:1 to receive (a) Moodivate, (b) an active control cognitive-behavioral therapy-based mobile app ("MoodKit"), or (c) treatment as usual (TAU; no app). Participants completed assessments of depressive symptoms weekly for 8 weeks. App analytics data were captured to examine Moodivate feasibility (analytics unavailable for control app). Moodivate participants on average had 46.76 (SD = 30.10) app sessions throughout the trial duration, spent 3.50 (2.76) minutes using the app per session, and spent 120.76 (101.02) minutes using the app in total throughout the trial. Nearly 70% of Moodivate participants continued to use the app 1 month after trial enrollment and 50% at the end of the 8-week follow-up period. A generalized estimating equation model examining change in depressive symptoms over time by treatment condition indicated a significant interaction between time and treatment condition (χ 2 = 42.21, df = 14, p < .001). As compared to TAU, participants in both app conditions evidenced significant decreases in depressive symptoms over time, and these treatment gains were sustained across the trial period. These results preliminarily indicate feasibility of Moodivate as well as efficacy of both Moodivate and MoodKit for the treatment of depression among adults recruited via primary care. Future studies should focus on larger-scale examinations of treatment efficacy and effectiveness across primary care settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beth.2018.12.003

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our included studies covered several publications that were published after 2019 to reflect updated evidence.

    “First, our included studies covered several publications that were published after 2019 [32-34,38,44] to reflect updated evidence, which can support future development and use of app-based mHealth interventions for anxiety and depression.”

    From Effectiveness and Minimum Effective Dose of App-Based Mobile Health Interventions for Anxiety and Depression Symptom Reduction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Methods (Procedures; page unavailable) describe this paper’s own mobile-app trial, not the citing authors’ included studies. Neither that passage nor the Discussion and References passages establish which publications the citing authors included or whether several were published after 2019 (searched: publication year and post-2019 studies). (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Erhardt D, & Dorian E (2013). Going Mobile: A Case Vignette Illustrating the Integration of Mobile Technology in Psychotherapy. Independent Practitioner, 33(1), 15– 21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dahne, J., Lejuez, C. W., Diaz, V. A., Player, M. S., Kustanowitz, J., Felton, J. W., & Carpenter, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Dahne, Jennifer
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
817-827
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904008552
Cited by
78
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
behavioral activation, depression, mobile health apps, self-help intervention, primary care, depressive symptoms, cognitive behavioral therapy, app usage, medication adherence
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Primary Health Care, Health Behavior, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review