Cited by 10Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Exploring perceptions of a computerized cognitive behavior therapy program in a U.S. rural western state.

Open access
Schure, Mark B., Howard, Meredith, Bailey, Sandra J., Bryan, Bill, Greist, John·2018·Journal of Rural Mental Health

Abstract

Computerized mental health interventions have the potential to address existing mental health care disparities in rural communities. The aim of this study was to conduct an exploratory examination on the acceptability of an interactive computerized cognitive behavior therapy program to reduce depressive symptoms for adults in a rural Western state. Partnering with the land-grant university Extension system and a state non-profit organization, we identified and interviewed 18 key informants and conducted 19 focus groups in 15 rural communities to ascertain attitudes and perspectives about the program. Key informants were provided access to the Thrive program prior to the interviews. Focus group participants were provided a brief demonstration of the program and asked to provide feedback. Content analyses of interview and focus group transcripts yielded four general themes of program acceptability: privacy, accessibility, user-friendliness, and cultural inappropriateness. Overall, participants indicated that the Thrive program would be useful for many in their communities. They also reported that the program could be improved by making videos that better represent rural community members' lifestyles and experiences. The study team members acted on these findings to improve the Thrive program for rural Western populations.

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 · 10.1037/rmh0000102

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • CBT-based interventions are often well accepted in rural settings.

    “and are often well accepted in rural settings [13, 14].”

    From Improving the mental health of farmers: what types of remote support are acceptable, feasible, and improve outcomes? A feasibility RCT (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion’s Conclusions say computerized CBT may be acceptable in rural Western communities, and the Abstract reports favorable acceptability findings from rural communities in other countries. But the study concerns computerized CBT specifically, and its Discussion cautions against generalizing its findings to other U.S. regions; it does not establish that CBT-based interventions broadly are often well accepted across rural settings. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interactive computerised cognitive behaviour therapy has been found acceptable in U.S. rural communities in relation to privacy, accessibility, user-friendliness and cultural appropriateness.

    “Interactive computerised cognitive behaviour therapy has been found to be acceptable in U.S. rural communities in relation to privacy, accessibility, user-friendliness and cultural appropriateness [13].”

    From Improving the mental health of farmers: what types of remote support are acceptable, feasible, and improve outcomes? A feasibility RCT (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results identify privacy, accessibility, and user-friendliness as themes of acceptability for the Thrive program in rural communities. But the fourth theme is cultural inappropriateness: participants said parts of the program did not reflect rural lifestyles, so the claim overstates its cultural acceptability. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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. Patton MQ (2005). Qualitative research In Everitt B & Howell D (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (pp. 1633– 1636). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schure, M. B., Howard, M., Bailey, S. J., Bryan, B., & Greist, J.
Affiliations
Montana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Schure, Mark B.
Venue
Journal of Rural Mental Health
Published
2018-07
Volume
42
Issue
3-4
Pages
174-183
ISSN
  • 1935-942X (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-8969
OpenAlex
W2896604224
Cited by
10
References
32
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Rural Mental Health (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (P20GM103474; U54GM115371; 5P20GM104417)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
program acceptability, depressive symptoms, mental health care disparities, privacy, accessibility, ease of use, cultural appropriateness, rural communities, program development

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