Feasibility and acceptability of digital behavioral interventions among black and hispanic patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized pilot study
Open accessAbstract
Lay Summary: The use of digital behavioral interventions was tested among patients with inflammatory bowel disease with a predominately low-income, Black/Hispanic background who had elevated symptoms of anxiety/depression. Both mood-tracking and cognitive behavioral self-management applications were feasible and acceptable to use, with opportunities for improvement identified.
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 authors' earlier work indicates that discussing the brain-gut connection and using the clinician-patient relationship when referring to even a simple commercial digital tool like mood tracking can lead to uptake, engagement, and enjoyment among Black and Hispanic IBD patients.
“Our previous work suggests that framing the conversation in the context of the brain-gut connection and leveraging the therapeutic clinician-patient relationship in making a referral to even a simple, commercially available digital behavioral intervention like mood tracking can result in uptake, engagement, and enjoyment among Black and Hispanic patients with IBD.22”
From Culturally Informed Digital Behavioral Intervention Development for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Qualitative Study (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The Methods and Results (pages unavailable) describe a commercially available mood-tracking app and report its use and enjoyment among participants. The Discussion says a gastroenterology physician suggested app use and speculates that this may have encouraged follow-through. The paper does not establish that framing the referral around the brain–gut connection or leveraging the clinician–patient relationship led to those outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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 9 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Greywoode, R., Nahvi, S., Ullman, T., & Keefer, L.
- Affiliations
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Corresponding author
- Greywoode, Ruby
- Venue
- Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-03-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 294-297
- ISSN
- 1078-0998 (ISSN-L)
- 1536-4844
- PMC
- PMC11700890
- OpenAlex
- W4392388650
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Einstein Montefiore Clinical and Translational Science (UL1TR001073)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K24DA051807)
- 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
- inflammatory bowel disease
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
