The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 15 of the 31 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression
Open accessAbstract
Objective This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of two methods of delivering a cognitive behaviorally informed Internet intervention for depression for adults 65 years and older. Methods Forty-seven participants were enrolled and assigned to receive one of two versions of the Internet intervention, either delivered individually (III) or with peer support (II+PS), or to a wait list control group (WLC). Primary outcomes included change in depressive symptoms from baseline to post-intervention (week 8), site use, self-reported usability, and coach time. Secondary outcomes included measures of social support and isolation and anxiety. Results Follow-up data were provided by 85.1% (40 of 47) of enrolled participants. There were significant differences in depression change across groups (F(2,37) = 3.81, p = 0.03). Greater reductions in depressive symptoms were found for the III (p = 0.02) and II+PS (p = 0.03) compared with WLC, and significantly less coach time was required in the II+PS (p = 0.003). Conclusions These results highlight the potential of cognitive-behaviorally informed Internet interventions for older adults with depression, and indicate that peer-supported programs are both acceptable and equivalent to individually delivered Internet interventions. Including peer support may be a viable and potentially more cost-effective option for disseminating online treatments for depression for older adults. © 2017 American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
34 Own result · 11 Own interpretation · 8 Own method · 6 Partly supported · 6 No full text of the sources · 4 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“most studies demonstrate that internet interventions provided with support produce better outcomes (19).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [19] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (3.2) reports that eight studies compared guided with unguided interventions and that the pooled symptom-severity outcome favored guided interventions. It also reports higher module-completion and completer rates with guidance, supporting the claim’s general comparison. (LLM, conf=0.89)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The internet offers opportunities for depression treatment that could dramatically impact older adults’ access to care (9).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion’s recommendations for future research describe computerized and telehealth-supported therapies as ways to deliver late-life depression care and say technology is likely to assist treatment delivery. They do not specifically establish that internet-based treatment could dramatically improve older adults’ access to care; they also note a possible digital divide and call for further research. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“a large trial found that peer support reduced adherence to internet training relative to internet training alone (23).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [23] source
The Results section (Adherence to the intervention, page unavailable) reports that participants receiving internet training plus the support group completed significantly fewer training modules than those receiving training alone. The Discussion explicitly concludes that adding the support group reduced adherence to the training program. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“85.1% (40/47) met this criterion.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pairwise comparisons revealed differences in depression change between III and WLC (t19 =2.5, P=.02)”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significant differences were found in depression change between groups (F2,37 =3.81, p=.03).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and between II+PS and WLC (t29 =2.22, p=.03).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences in depression change were found between III and II+PS (t28 =.41, p=.68).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly all II+PS participants (22/23) used at least 1 peer support feature (see Table 4).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Examination of within-group change was not significant for III and WLC for SPS total score or subscales (p’s>.05).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Secondary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“there has been some evidence that peer support can improve adherence to internet interventions and reduce depression (22)”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [22] source
The Discussion (page unavailable) says trends suggest that adding an internet support group may enhance both adherence and outcomes. The Results (page unavailable) report more logins and larger reductions in depressive symptoms for Onward than for the intervention alone, although between-group differences were not statistically significant. The claim’s tentative wording reflects that uncertainty. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The efficacy of CBT-based internet interventions for treating depression in younger and middle-aged adults is well established (10) (11).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says guided internet CBT and face-to-face CBT were equally effective for depressive symptoms in the aggregated cohort. The Methods specify adult samples, but the paper does not establish efficacy specifically for younger and middle-aged adults; the Results include a study of depressive symptoms in elderly participants. Its comparison also concerns guided internet CBT, rather than CBT-based internet interventions generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [11] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Mood disorders in adults’ section reports a large pooled effect for internet-delivered CBT versus waiting-list controls and rates the evidence for therapist-guided treatment as moderate. This supports efficacy in adults, but the review’s evidence is chiefly for mild-to-moderate depression and therapist-guided interventions; it does not establish efficacy for CBT-based internet interventions generally or report a separate finding for younger and middle-aged adults. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“self-guided internet interventions tend to see high rates of dropout and poor adherence (18).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says dropout rates are high, particularly in open-access e-therapy trials, and that e-therapy users may be prone to dropout and nonadherence. It does not establish that these rates specifically characterize self-guided interventions; open access and self-guidance are not necessarily the same. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“emerging evidence supports their efficacy and acceptability for reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults over 60 (13–17).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] source
The Methods identify patients aged 60 and older receiving internet-delivered CBT for depression and anxiety disorders. The Results report significant reductions in psychological distress regardless of age and greater course completion among older adults; the Discussion concludes that treatment was effective and acceptable for older treatment-seeking patients. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Supportedcites [16] source
The Method identifies participants as adults aged 60 and above. The Results report significant reductions in both depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) symptoms, while Treatment satisfaction reports that most respondents would recommend the course and considered it worth their time. The Discussion concludes that iCBT remained effective and acceptable in routine clinical care. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite numerous evidence-based interventions shown to effectively reduce late-life depression (6), many older adults experience barriers that limit access to care (7, 8).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [7] source
The citation to this paper supports the barriers-to-care part of the sentence, not the separately cited treatment-efficacy claim. The Discussion identifies provider reluctance, high psychotherapy costs, and geographical barriers that may prevent older adults from receiving treatment; the introduction also reports rare specialist referrals and lower outpatient mental-health treatment among adults aged 65 or older. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [8] source
The Introduction says that many depressed older adults remain untreated or undertreated because of patient, provider, service-system, and social-structural barriers. The Conclusion likewise says critical barriers preclude many older adults from receiving adequate care. The sentence cites a different source for the effectiveness of interventions; this paper supports the barriers-to-care point. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Retention and usage are similar other trials of internet interventions with older adults (15–17) and higher relative to trials with younger adults (<65 years) (37).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Supportedcites [16] source
The citation to this paper is attached to the comparison with older-adult internet intervention trials, not the separate claim about younger adults. The Results section (page unavailable) reports lesson completion, questionnaire completion and withdrawal for two groups of adults aged 60 and above, establishing it as an older-adult internet intervention study with retention and usage data. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
- Partly supportedcites [37] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results table reports retention and usage measures for internet-intervention trials, so the review provides a benchmark for the cited comparison. It does not establish that the citing study’s retention and usage exceed those of trials with adults under 65. Its Results > Predictors of Adherence instead reports mixed age-related findings: younger age predicted greater adherence in depression trials, while one PTSD trial found greater adherence among older participants (page not available in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This study demonstrates the potential benefits of embedding peer support, including improved adherence compared to a prior trial (23) and reduced burden on participants.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [23] source
The citation identifies Griffiths et al. as the prior trial used for the adherence comparison, not as the source of the citing study’s findings. Its Discussion reports that adding an online support group reduced adherence to the training program. The citing study’s improved adherence and reduced participant burden are its own claims, which this source cannot establish. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Peer support has previously been provided separately from online interventions (23), requiring extra effort from participants to complete both.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [23] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (The Interventions; page unavailable) describe peer support and the online training program as separate websites delivered simultaneously in the combined condition. The Discussion (Strengths and weaknesses; page unavailable) suggests that participation effort may vary and reports lower adherence in the combined group, but does not establish that completing both required extra effort. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“47 participants were enrolled and assigned to one of 3 groups: II +PS (N=23), WLC (N=12), or III (N=12).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS
plainn = 47- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of 11 participants who initiated III (18%) and 4 of 23 participants who initiated II+PS (17%) withdrew”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average number of lessons completed (III: M=11.7, SD=3.8; II+PS: M=11.3, SD=4.5; p>.50) was not significantly different between groups (p>.50).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Use of peer support features was generally high, though variability was observed across participants (M=48.8, SD=85.8, range 0–392).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reductions in depression were significant for III and II+PS groups, but not for WLC (see Table 2).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean number of sessions across the 8-week intervention was 45.6 (SD=24.9) for III (N=11) and 49.1 (SD=35.8) for II+PS (N=23); differences were not significant (p>.50).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Scores on USE subscales ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and fell in the average to below average range for both groups.”
- Also stated in: § Primary Outcomes · plain
“No significant differences were found between groups on any subscale (p’s>.10).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Primary Outcomes · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“several participants expressed confusion about how and where to view “likes” and “comments” and less than half used the “status” or “nudge” features.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At week 8, III participants’ (N=9) overall usability ratings were average (M=68.75, SD=16.09), while II+PS ratings (N=21) were below average (M=60.5, SD=16.69), but not significantly different from III.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““Comment” and “like” features were used by most participants (83%) at least once; less than half used “status” or “nudge” features (44% and 39%, respectively).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“compared to coach time reported in the previously mentioned RCT (M=45.07, SD=32.51) (17), coach time in the present study was about 89 minutes more for III and 47 minutes more for II+PS.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Program usage was high, with an average of 45 sessions for III and 49 for II+PS, and retention was good for both groups (approximately 80%).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Differences in number of calls and call time were not significant (p’s>.05).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to II-PS participants, III participants received nearly twice the messages (t26=4.70, p<.001) and coaches spent more than twice the time on average messaging III participants (t26=3.56, p=.001).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Coaches also received negative feedback about the location and functionality of the activity feed, with some participants expressing disappointment regarding the feed functionality and how this limited their ability to connect with others.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Change in social isolation was not significantly different between groups (p>.10), and change was not significant within each group (p’s>.10).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Secondary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to a WLC, reductions in depression were observed for all participants who received MoodTech, with an average drop of 5 points on the PHQ-9.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“coach feedback indicated that there was confusion regarding the location and function of the “status” feature, as well as the function of the “nudge” feature, which participants ultimately used to deepen established connections with other group members (i.e., reinforce bond) rather than to engage disengaged participants (i.e., accountability).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences were found between groups on change in total SPS (p>.10), or any subscale (p’s >.10).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Secondary Outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences comparing III and WLC (t19=4.58, p<.001)”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Secondary Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“significant increases on overall support and subscales of guidance and reliable alliance were observed for II+PS”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significant change was observed within II+PS group on SPS total score (t18=−2.26, p=.04), and guidance (t18=−2.36, p=.04) and reliable alliance (t18=−2.15, p=.03) subscales.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Secondary Outcomes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“and is associated with decreased quality of life and increased rates of disability (2), morbidity, and mortality (3).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, group assignment was performed in blocks of 10–12, and assignment order was pre-specified as follows: II+PS, WLC, II+PS, III.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > METHODS > Procedures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study was approved by the Northwestern University institutional review board, registered on the Clinical Trials Registry as NCT02841787.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > METHODS > Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it was not possible to blind coaches to intervention condition, which could have biased time spent coaching.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group moderation time was not formally tracked as it was a high frequency/low time activity, and was estimated at 2 minutes/weekdays.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > METHODS > Coaching & Group Moderation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Untreated depression is burdensome for society, substantially increasing healthcare utilization and costs (4, 5).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] source
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because this was a small pilot study with very low rates of missing data, intent-to-treat analyses were not conducted.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Programs delivered online have several advantages as they remove restrictions imposed by clinics, such as hours, clinician availability, and geographical restrictions, thus resolving transportation and mobility related barriers.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Depression in later life is common and undertreated (1)”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Usability scores indicate that MoodTech is acceptable and generally satisfactory in its current form, without significant usability issues.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the feasibility and acceptability of this program remains unknown for more diverse samples, and for those who do not have pre-existing familiarity with the internet and would not volunteer to participate.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study demonstrated feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of MoodTech and highlights the potential benefits of including peer support in online interventions for older adults with depression.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION > Conclusion
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“User feedback and usability data suggest that further design work is required to develop a technology platform that more fully meets the needs of older adults.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicates that adults 65 and older will use and can benefit from coached internet interventions for depression delivered individually and with peer support.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significantly less time was spent coaching participants when peer support was included, suggesting that embedding peer support in internet interventions could reduce coach time, thus increasing cost-effectiveness.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample size was relatively small, and was primarily non-Hispanic White and highly educated.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The present findings are consistent with reductions in depression observed in the only prior RCT (17) to evaluate the efficacy of a guided internet intervention for depressed adults 60 years and older, and extends these findings to a slightly older sample (M=69.6 years, SD=4.1, range 65–83).”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of MoodTech”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, this was the first internet intervention for depressed older adults to embed peer support.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Only a small number of researchers have tried to use peer support within online depression interventions.
“To date, few researchers have attempted to harness peer support in online interventions for depression.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Peer support has the potential to increase engagement, lower costs, and extend reach by lessening reliance on professional support.
“Peer support could potentially promote engagement, while decreasing costs and increasing reach by reducing the need for professional support.”
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?
In the citing paper
“While older adults are using technology in greater numbers (Anderson et al., 2017) and benefitting from technology use (Anguera et al., 2017; Cotten et al., 2011; Czaja et al., 2018; Decker et al., 2019; Harerimana et al., 2019; Hurling et al., 2007; Irvine et al., 2013; Tomasino et al., 2017; White et al., 2002), they continue to be the least likely age cohort to have access to a computer and the”
From Digital ageism: challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults (2022) · cites this paper as Tomasino et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > DISCUSSION
“Usability scores indicate that MoodTech is acceptable and generally satisfactory in its current form, without significant usability issues.”
§ Harnessing Peer Support in an Online Intervention for Older Adults with Depression > RESULTS > Primary Outcomes
“Per industry standards, a SUS score of 68 is average and scores >70 considered “acceptable,” with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes (36). At week 8, III participants’ (N=9) overall usability ratings were average (M=68.75, SD=16.09), while II+PS ratings (N=21) were below average (M=60.5, SD=16.69), but not significantly different from III.”
Citations
Cites
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · Cited by 51,384
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 · Cited by 31,765 · cited 1×
“The Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) (30) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7)(31) measured depression and anxiety, respectively.”
MethodKessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · Cited by 20,391
(1998) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · Cited by 19,139
(1998) · PubMed · Cited by 10,216
SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale
(1996) · Usability Evaluation In Industry · doi:10.1201/9781498710411-35 · Cited by 8,989
Usability Evaluation In Industry
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781498710411 · Cited by 4,445
Advances in Personal Relationships
Hall, J. A. (2020) · Cited by 1,978
Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status
Brandt, J., Spencer, M., & Folstein, M. F. (1988) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t28542-000 · Cited by 1,504
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lund, 2001, Measuring usability with the use questionnaire, Usability Interface, 8, 3
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–107 of 107
Joo, J. H., Xie, A., Vleet, S. C. V., Locascio, J. J., Brackpool, K., Wu, F., Choi, N. G., Solomon, P., & Cloney, N. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/85526
“However, no RCTs of technology-enhanced peer support have been done in the United States [58-61].”
Fu, T., 邢琳琳, Luo, H., Sun, Q., Lv, Y., Cui, X., Du, Y., Xia, C., & Fan, L. (2026) · International Journal of Nursing Practice · doi:10.1111/ijn.70151 · Cited by 1
Luo, Y. X., Qiu, C., & Zhang, Z. N. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.103873
Digital peer support in adults with common mental disorders: a scoping review
Thomas, D. M. J., & Melson, A. J. (2026) · Advances in Mental Health · doi:10.1080/18387357.2026.2679613
Garrido, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197759424.003.0022
Technophobia Among Older Adults in the Context of Smart Healthcare: A Scoping Review
Shen, Y., Chen, M., Wang, X., Qi, Z., & Qiu, X. (2026) · Clinical Gerontologist · doi:10.1080/07317115.2026.2705289
Digital peer support as an approach to TechQuity in mental health
Nagra, H., Beck, C., & Shabazian, E. (2026) · Mental Health and Social Inclusion · doi:10.1108/mhsi-06-2026-0204
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomasino, K. N., Lattie, E. G., Ho, J., Palac, H. L., Kaiser, S. M., & Mohr, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tomasino, Kathryn N.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1109-1119
- ISSN
- 1064-7481 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5600661
- OpenAlex
- W2610403891
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 6.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (P20 MH090318, R01MH095753)
- National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR001422)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- older adults, depression, peer support, online intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, feasibility, depressive symptoms, social support, social isolation, anxiety, usability
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depressive Disorder, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Peer Group, Pilot Projects, Social Support, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Internet
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
