Cited by 40Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

Feasibility and efficacy of a digital CBT intervention for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized multiple-baseline study

Miller, Christopher B., Gu, Jenny, Henry, Alasdair L., Davis, Michelle L., Espie, Colin A., Stott, Richard, Heinz, Adrienne J., Bentley, Kate H. +4 more·2021·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a first-line treatment for anxiety, but it is not widely available as clinical guidelines recommend. We examined the feasibility and efficacy of a novel smartphone-based fully automated digital CBT intervention, 'Daylight™', to improve symptoms of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD).Methods In this multiple-baseline design, 21 adults (20 F; mean age 43yrs. range 19-65yrs.) with moderate-to-severe symptoms of GAD were randomized to one of three baseline durations (2-, 4-, or 6-weeks) and then received access to digital CBT. Participants completed daily ratings of anxiety and worry, weekly measures of anxiety, depressive symptoms, and sleep, and measures of anxiety, worry, wellbeing, quality of life, CBT skill acquisition, and work performance at initial assessment prior to baseline randomization, post-intervention, and follow-up.Results Digital CBT was found to be feasible in terms of engagement, satisfaction, and safety. For preliminary efficacy, improvements were detected in daily and weekly outcomes of anxiety for most participants. Despite individual differences, significant improvements occurred with the introduction of digital CBT and not during baseline. Overall, 70% of participants no longer had clinically significant symptoms of GAD, 61% no longer had significant depressive symptoms, and 40% no longer had significant sleep difficulty at post-intervention.Limitations The study sample was recruited using the internet and was mostly female, limiting the generalizability of the findings.Conclusions Findings support the feasibility and efficacy of Daylight. Further examination in randomized controlled trials is now warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2020.101609

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • As evaluated by the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire, the program received moderate to high credibility scores.

    “As evaluated by the Credibility/ Expectancy Questionnaire, the program received moderate to high credibility scores.”
  • In terms of feasibility, 76% of participants completed all 4 modules, 81% completed 3 modules, 86% completed 2 modules, and all participants completed at least 1 module.

    “In terms of feasibility, 76% of participants completed all 4 modules, 81% completed 3 modules, 86% completed 2 modules, and all participants completed at least 1 module.”
  • 43% of participants reported unwanted symptoms such as agitation, fatigue, low mood, or reduced motivation.

    “but 43% of participants reported unwanted symptoms such as agitation, fatigue, low mood, or reduced motivation.”
  • In Miller et al., daily and weekly outcomes provided preliminary evidence of efficacy of the Daylight program for improving GAD symptoms.

    “Daily and weekly outcomes provided preliminary evidence of efficacy of the program for improving GAD symptoms”
  • No serious adverse events were observed.

    “No serious adverse events were observed”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, C. B., Gu, J., Henry, A. L., Davis, M. L., Espie, C. A., Stott, R., Heinz, A. J., Bentley, K. H., Goodwin, G. M., Gorman, B. S., Craske, M. G., & Carl, J. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
  • Big Health Inc. (United States) (US)
  • Adelphi University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Christopher B.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
70
Pages
101609
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3084153107
Cited by
40
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
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
generalized anxiety disorder, digital cognitive behavioral therapy, smartphone-based intervention, daylight, feasibility, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, sleep disorders, worry, quality of life, employee performance, internet-delivered treatment
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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