Behavioral and cognitive intervention strategies delivered via coached apps for depression: Pilot trial.
Open accessAbstract
Depression is common in primary care settings, but barriers prevent many primary care patients from initiating treatment. Smartphone apps stand as a possible means to overcome such barriers. However, there is limited evidence to understand the use and efficacy of these apps. The purpose of the current study was to pilot an evaluation of the usage and efficacy of apps for depression based upon behavioral or cognitive intervention skills, compared to a wait-list control. Thirty adults with depression were randomized to the use of either a behavioral app (Boost Me) or a cognitive app (Thought Challenger) or to a wait-list control. Boost Me and Thought Challenger participants received 6 weeks of the respective intervention along with weekly coaching sessions, with a 4-week follow-up period; wait-list control participants received no interventions for 10 weeks. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted to examine depression over time and across treatment groups; t tests compared app usage across groups. Depression scores changed significantly over time (p < .001), with group differences occurring between Thought Challenger and wait-list control participants (p = .03). Boost Me was used significantly more than was Thought Challenger (p = .02); however, there was no evidence to suggest correlations between usage and changes in depression (ps > .05). The present study provides initial support that intervention strategies for depression delivered via apps with human support can impact symptoms and may promote continued use over 6 weeks. This pilot also demonstrates the feasibility of future research regarding the delivery of behavioral and cognitive intervention strategies via apps. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The nine research articles that examined the 10 apps were made up of seven randomized controlled trials and two feasibility or pilot studies.
“The nine research articles [47-55] that examined the 10 apps were made up of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—the Flett et al article contained one RCT with 2 of the listed apps: Headspace and Smiling Mind [52]—and two feasibility or pilot studies: Kinderman et al [48] and Carey et al [55].”
From Apps with maps-anxiety and depression mobile apps with evidence-based frameworks: Systematic search of major app stores (2020) · cites this paper as [51]
The Method > Treatments passage describes a randomized comparison involving two apps, and the Discussion calls this a pilot trial. The paper does not establish the citing sentence’s totals of nine articles and ten apps, its seven-RCT/two-pilot classification, or the named studies’ places in that classification (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOur 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 [34]
The Discussion describes this paper’s own pilot trial, not the citing authors’ set of included studies. Our copy does not address whether that set contained publications published after 2019 or was selected to reflect updated evidence (searched for the date and inclusion claim). (LLM, conf=0.76)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 59
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Beck JS 2011 Cognitive behavior therapy Second New York Guilford Press
- Brooke J 1996 SUS: A "quick and dirty" usability scale Jordan PW Thomas B Weerdmeester BA Usability evaluation in industry 189 194 London, UK Taylor & Francis
- Authors
- Stiles-Shields, C., Montague, E., Kwasny, M. J., & Mohr, D. C.
- Affiliations
- DePaul University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Services
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-238
- ISSN
- 1541-1559 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-148X
- PMC
- PMC6499699
- OpenAlex
- W2900033292
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 6.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Services (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH100482, F31 MH106321)
- National Institutes of Health (UL1 RR025780)
- 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 › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- depression, mobile application, behavioral interventions, cognitive intervention, coaching, app usage, primary care, barriers to treatment, feasibility
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Adult, Behavior Therapy, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Pilot Projects, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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
