Cited by 116Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Comparison of the Effects of Coaching and Receipt of App Recommendations on Depression, Anxiety, and Engagement in the IntelliCare Platform: Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Mohr, David C, Schueller, Stephen M, Tomasino, Kathryn Noth, Kaiser, Susan M, Alam, Nameyeh, Karr, Chris, Vergara, Jessica L, Gray, Elizabeth L +2 more·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: IntelliCare is a modular platform that includes 12 simple apps targeting specific psychological strategies for common mental health problems. Objective: This study aimed to examine the effect of 2 methods of maintaining engagement with the IntelliCare platform, coaching, and receipt of weekly recommendations to try different apps on depression, anxiety, and app use. Methods: A total of 301 participants with depression or anxiety were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments lasting 8 weeks and were followed for 6 months posttreatment. The trial used a 2X2 factorial design (coached vs self-guided treatment and weekly app recommendations vs no recommendations) to compare engagement metrics. Results: The median time to last use of any app during treatment was 56 days (interquartile range 54-57), with 253 participants (84.0%, 253/301) continuing to use the apps over a median of 92 days posttreatment. Receipt of weekly recommendations resulted in a significantly higher number of app use sessions during treatment (overall median=216; P=.04) but only marginal effects for time to last use (P=.06) and number of app downloads (P=.08). Coaching resulted in significantly more app downloads (P<.001), but there were no significant effects for time to last download or number of app sessions (P=.36) or time to last download (P=.08). Participants showed significant reductions in the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) across all treatment arms (P s<.001). Coached treatment led to larger GAD-7 reductions than those observed for self-guided treatment (P=.03), but the effects for the PHQ-9 did not reach significance (P=.06). Significant interaction was observed between receiving recommendations and time for the PHQ-9 (P=.04), but there were no significant effects for GAD-7 (P=.58). Conclusions: IntelliCare produced strong engagement with apps across all treatment arms. Coaching was associated with stronger anxiety outcomes, and receipt of recommendations enhanced depression outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02801877; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02801877

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 · 10.2196/13609

Cites

40 of 40 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?

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: 2

  1. [38]Kwasny MJ Schueller SM Lattie EG Gray EL Mohr DC Towards managing a platform of mental health apps: a secondary analysis of the IntelliCare field trial J Med Internet Res 2019 - (epub ahead of print) 10.2196/preprints.11572 PMC6447993 30896433 · DOI
  2. [43]Kelly K The Inevitable 2016 New York Viking Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mohr, D. C., Schueller, S. M., Tomasino, K. N., Kaiser, S. M., Alam, N., Karr, C., Vergara, J. L., Gray, E. L., Kwasny, M. J., & Lattie, E. G.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Centers for New Horizons (US)
Corresponding author
Mohr, David C
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-08-28
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
e13609
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963665532
Cited by
116
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3
FWCI
13.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001422)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K08MH112878, P50MH119029, R01MH100482)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
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
mental health apps, depression, anxiety, coaching, app engagement, app recommendations, self-guided treatment, digital mental health interventions, app downloads, PHQ-9, GAD-7
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Research Design, 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