Cited by 105Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

Comparing human and automated support for depression: Fractional factorial randomized controlled trial

Open access
Kelders, Saskia M., Bohlmeijer, Ernst T., Pots, Wendy T.M., van Gemert-Pijnen, Julia E.W.C.·2015·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Web-based interventions for people with depressive symptoms are needed and show promising effects. However, it is a consistent finding that human support is needed and this makes implementation costly. This study investigates the adherence and effectiveness of a human-supported and automated-supported web-based intervention for people with mild to moderate depressive symptomatology, and studies the impact of four persuasive technology components. People with mild to moderate depressive symptoms according to the Center of Epidemiological Studies depression scale self-report questionnaire were included, but no diagnosis was made for the study. Participants (n = 239) were randomized into one of eight intervention arms, where each level of each component is present in half of the intervention arms. On clinical outcomes, there was a significant interaction effect between support condition and time, but there was no difference on the extent of improvement from baseline to follow-up, only a difference in the time-path of improvement. Effect sizes from baseline to follow-up were 0.89 for automated and 1.00 for human support. There was no significant difference on adherence between support condition. We conclude that an automated-supported web-based intervention for treatment of depression with persuasive technology may achieve similar adherence and effectiveness as the same intervention with human support.

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.brat.2015.06.014

Cites

62 of 62 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?

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

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]20. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelders, S. M., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Pots, W. T. M., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C.
Affiliations
University of Twente (NL)
Corresponding author
Kelders, Saskia M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
72
Pages
72-80
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W855558648
Cited by
105
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
15.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Twente
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
depression, online intervention, automated support, human support, persuasive technology, medication adherence, intervention effectiveness, digital mental health
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Text Messaging

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