Cited by 10

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding Users’ Experiences of a Novel Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Platform for Depression and Anxiety: Qualitative Interviews From Pilot Trial Participants

Shkel, Jane, Green, Gavin, Le, Stacey, Kaveladze, Benjamin, Marcotte, Veronique, Rushton, Kevin, Nguyen, Theresa, Schueller, Stephen M·2023·JMIR Formative Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can help bridge the gap between the demand for mental health care and availability of treatment resources. The affordances of DMHIs have been proposed to overcome barriers to care such as accessibility, cost, and stigma. Despite these proposals, most evaluations of the DMHI focus on clinical effectiveness, with less consideration of users’ perspectives and experiences. Objective: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of “Overcoming Thoughts,” a web-based platform that uses cognitive and behavioral principles to address depression and anxiety. The “Overcoming Thoughts” platform included 2 brief interventions—cognitive restructuring and behavioral experimentation. Users accessed either a version that included asynchronous interactions with other users (“crowdsourced” platform) or a completely self-guided version (control condition). We aimed to understand the users’ perspectives and experiences by conducting a subset of interviews during the follow-up period of the trial. Methods: We used purposive sampling to select a subset of trial participants based on group assignment (treatment and control) and symptom improvement (those who improved and those who did not on primary outcomes). We conducted semistructured interviews with 23 participants during the follow-up period that addressed acceptability, usability, and impact. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interviews until saturation was reached. Results: A total of 8 major themes were identified: possible opportunities to expand the platform; improvements in mental health because of using the platform; increased self-reflection skills; platform being more helpful for certain situations or domains; implementation of skills into users’ lives, even without direct platform use; increased coping skills because of using the platform; repetitiveness of platform exercises; and use pattern. Although no differences in themes were found among groups based on improvement status (all P values >.05, ranging from .12 to .86), there were 4 themes that differed based on conditions (P values from .01 to .046): helpfulness of self-reflection supported by an exercise summary (greater in control); aiding in slowing thoughts and feeling calmer (greater in control); overcoming patterns of avoidance (greater in control); and repetitiveness of content (greater in the intervention). Conclusions: We identified the different benefits that users perceived from a novel DMHI and opportunities to improve the platform. Interestingly, we did not note any differences in themes between those who improved and those who did not, but we did find some differences between those who received the control and intervention versions of the platform. Future research should continue to investigate users’ experiences with DMHIs to better understand the complex dynamics of their use and outcomes.

Overview

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 · 10.2196/46062

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0133 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/eip.12281 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s10488-011-0364-x · DOI
  4. 10.2196/14990 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/2858036.2858128 · DOI
  6. 10.2196/29368 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.invent.2021.100398 · DOI
  8. 10.1186/s12888-018-1979-1 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.426 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.beth.2012.10.001 · DOI
  13. 10.2196/jmir.1772 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1145/3173574.3173905 · DOI
  15. Hitchcock, P, 2016, Behavior Therapist, 39, 51
  16. 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.038 · DOI
  17. 10.1017/s0033291799001014 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shkel, J., Green, G., Le, S., Kaveladze, B., Marcotte, V., Rushton, K., Nguyen, T., & Schueller, S. M.
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2023-06-20
Volume
7
Pages
e46062
ISSN
2561-326X
Cited by
10
References
24
Language
en

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