Cited by 18Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Willingness to use internet-based versus bibliotherapy interventions in a representative US sample: cross-sectional survey study

Open access
De Jesús-Romero, Robinson, Wasil, Akash, Lorenzo-Luaces, Lorenzo·2022·JMIR Formative Research

Abstract

Background: Self-help interventions have the potential to increase access to evidence-based mental health care. Self-help can be delivered via different formats, including print media or digital mental health interventions (DMHIs). However, we do not know which delivery format is more likely to result in higher engagement. Objective: The aims of this study were to identify if there is a preference for engaging in print media versus DMHIs and whether there are individual differences in relative preferences. Methods: Participants were 423 adults between the ages of 18 and 82 years (201/423, 47.5% female) recruited on Prolific as a nationally representative sample of the US population, including non-Hispanic White (293/423, 69.2%), non-Hispanic Black (52/423, 12%), Asian (31/423, 7%), Hispanic (25/423, 6%), and other individuals (22/423, 5%). We provided individuals with psychoeducation in different self-help formats and measured their willingness to use print media versus DMHIs. We also assessed participants’ demographics, personality, and perception of each format’s availability and helpfulness and used these to predict individual differences in the relative preferences. Results: Participants reported being more willing to engage with print media than with DMHIs (B=0.41, SE 0.08; t422=4.91; P<.001; d=0.24, 95% CI 0.05-0.43). This preference appeared to be influenced by education level (B=0.22, SE 0.09; t413=2.41; P=.02; d=0.13, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.32), perceived helpfulness (B=0.78, SE 0.06; t411=13.66; P<.001; d=0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.66), and perceived availability (B=0.20, SE 0.58; t411=3.25; P=.001; d=0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.30) of the self-help format. Conclusions: This study suggests an overall preference for print media over DMHIs. Future work should investigate whether receiving mental health treatment via participants’ preferred delivery format can lead to higher engagement.

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 · 10.2196/39508

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Digital bibliotherapy can be effective and well-accepted in addressing emotional problems such as depression and anxiety.

    “Existing studies suggest that this format can be effective and well-accepted in addressing emotional problems such as depression and anxiety (79, 80).”

    From Recent developments in bibliotherapy for adolescent depression (2025) · cites this paper as [79]

    The Introduction’s “Self-help Interventions” section reports evidence that print bibliotherapy and digital mental health interventions can reduce depression. It treats them as separate formats, however, and does not establish the effectiveness of digital bibliotherapy for anxiety. The Results (“Overall Preference”; page unavailable) found greater willingness to use print media than digital interventions, so the claim that the digital format is well-accepted is not established by this study. (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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Introduction to RStudio: Customizing RStudio Sage Publications 2022-03-22 http://www.rstudio.com/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Jesús-Romero, R., Wasil, A., & Lorenzo-Luaces, L.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2022-08-24
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
e39508
ISSN
2561-326X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4286304738
Cited by
18
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Formative Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Psychological Association
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR002530, UL1TR002529)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH103213, T32MH103213)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
digital mental health interventions, bibliotherapy, print media, treatment engagement, psychoeducation, perceived helpfulness, perceived availability, educational attainment, personality, individual differences, access to mental health care, digital divide, older adults, racial and ethnic differences, gender differences, self-efficacy, help-seeking intentions, help-seeking facilitators

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