Cited by 188Diabetes Management and EducationPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 47 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

An online positive affect skills intervention reduces depression in adults with type 2 diabetes

Open access

Abstract

Positive affect predicts improved glycemic control and longevity in adults with type 2 diabetes. We tested Developing Affective HeaLth to Improve Adherence (DAHLIA), a self-paced online intervention for type 2 diabetes that teaches positive affect skills such as savoring, gratitude, and acts of kindness. Participants (n = 49) were randomized to the five-week DAHLIA course or an emotion-reporting wait-list control. DAHLIA was understood and accepted by participants and showed good retention (78%). At post-intervention, DAHLIA participants showed a significantly greater decrease in depression than controls (−4.3 vs. +0.6 points on the CES-D, p = 0.05). Secondary analyses found that this effect was considerably stronger in intervention recipients recruited online than those recruited in person. Intervention recipients recruited online also showed significantly increased positive affect, reduced negative affect, and reduced perceived stress. There were no effects on measures of diabetes-specific efficacy or sense of burden, or preliminary measures of health behaviors. This successful feasibility and efficacy trial provides support for a larger trial focusing more specifically on health behavior.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A 5-week self-paced online positive affect skills intervention (DAHLIA) reduced depressive symptoms in adults with type 2 diabetes compared with an emotion-reporting waitlist control. Effects were strongest among participants recruited online, with no significant effects on diabetes-specific efficacy, distress, or preliminary health behaviors.

Key findings

  • Depression decreased significantly more in the DAHLIA condition than control: −4.3 vs. +0.6 points on the CES-D (β = −.21, p = .05), with intervention scores falling from 16.9 to 12.6.
  • Exploratory analyses found the depression effect was considerably stronger for online-recruited participants: a 7.2-point reduction vs. 1.4 points for in-person recruits; adding recruitment type strengthened the condition effect (β = −.34, p = .02).
  • Among online recruits, the intervention also significantly reduced perceived stress when recruitment type was included (βcond = −.43, p = .01) and increased retrospective positive affect (βcond = .32, p = .05), with marginal reductions in negative affect.
  • No significant intervention effects were found for diabetes self-efficacy, diabetes distress, or health behaviors (all |β| < .19, p > .20); retention was 79% for final questionnaires and 72% met full-completer criteria.

Methods

  • Randomized pilot trial: 53 adults with type 2 diabetes recruited in person from UCSF diabetes education classes (n = 28) or online via Craigslist (n = 25); 49 completed the emotion-reporting run-in and were randomized to the 5-week DAHLIA course or an emotion-reporting waitlist control, and 42 completed final questionnaires used in analyses.
  • DAHLIA taught 8 positive affect/coping skills (e.g., savoring, gratitude, mindfulness, positive reappraisal, acts of kindness); participants practiced skills daily and completed daily emotion reports.
  • Main analysis used regression models predicting Time 2 scores from Time 1 scores and treatment condition; follow-up models added recruitment type and recruitment-by-condition interactions. Outcomes included CES-D depression, PSS perceived stress, DES positive/negative affect, CIDS diabetes self-efficacy, DDS diabetes distress, and daily self-reported health behaviors.

Limitations

  • The paper states it was a pilot not powered to detect downstream changes from psychological benefits to health behaviors or health outcomes, and it lacked long-term follow-up.
  • The paper states future studies need a more potent control than the emotion-reporting waitlist, and that paid assessments increased per-participant cost and reduced generalizability.
  • The paper notes the intervention was less effective in the in-person clinic sample, with a marginally significant suggestion of reduced diabetes self-efficacy in that subset; evident from the text, the small sample and multiple exploratory subgroup analyses make the online-vs-offline findings tentative.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17439760.2014.920410

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

53 Own result · 28 Not checked yet · 10 Own interpretation · 8 Own method · 1 No basis given

Verify all 47 references — free account

Show all 52 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
48 of 48
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The emotion-reporting-only control condition is an appropriate comparator for testing DAHLIA's efficacy.

    “control condition in which participants continued for 60 days of emotion reporting only1”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Mindfulness exercises may help participants recognize and appreciate positive events even under chronic stress.

    “Mindfulness exercises are continued throughout the intervention because we believe they may also help participants recognize and appreciate positive events, even in the context of chronic stress.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The intervention is low cost.

    “Because of the low cost of this intervention, and because individuals typically do not receive interventions of this type (i.e., there is no comparable treatment-as-usual), any degree of efficacy is of potential value.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People with type 2 diabetes typically do not receive interventions of this type, so there is no comparable treatment-as-usual.

    “Because of the low cost of this intervention, and because individuals typically do not receive interventions of this type (i.e., there is no comparable treatment-as-usual), any degree of efficacy is of potential value.”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(10) = 1.92reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .084

    “t(10) = 1.92, p = .08”

1 of 1

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.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1111/jopy.1989.57.issue-4 · DOI
  2. Carrico A. W., 2013, Health Psychology
  3. Cohen S., 1988, The social psychology of health: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, 31
  4. Pal K., 2013, The Cochrane Library, 1
  5. 10.1002/jclp.v65:5 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Cohn, M. A., Pietrucha, M. E., Saslow, L. R., Hult, J. R., & Moskowitz, J. T.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Cohn, Michael A.
Venue
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Published
2014-06-10
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
523-534
ISSN
  • 1743-9760 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9779
OpenAlex
W2061783093
Cited by
188
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Positive Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K24MH093225)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024131)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, depression, positive affect, online intervention, savoring, gratitude, acts of kindness, dahlias, perceived stress, glycemic control, health behavior, feasibility

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 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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