Cited by 9

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Alongside Digital Wellness Program for Youth: Longitudinal Pre-Post Outcomes Study

Cohen, Katherine, Rapoport, Andy, Friis, Elsa, Hill, Shannon, Feldman, Sergey, Schleider, Jessica·2025·JMIR Formative Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Youth are increasingly experiencing psychological distress. Schools are ideal settings for disseminating mental health support, but they are often insufficiently resourced to do so. Digital mental health tools represent a unique avenue to address this gap. The Alongside digital program is one such tool, intended as a universal prevention and early intervention. The platform includes social-emotional learning and self-help wellness features as well as an artificial intelligence–powered chatbot designed to build coping skills. Objective: This evaluation aimed to examine the near-term impact of Alongside app use on students’ self-reported mental health outcomes. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized pilot pragmatic evaluation leveraging anonymized user data. All data came from current Alongside users attending public middle and high schools in Texas and New Mexico, between 10 and 18 years old. Schools were actively engaged in partnership with Alongside and approved all procedures. Users were asked to complete mental health questionnaires upon app registration and at 1 and 3 months post registration. We conducted preregistered analyses as well as exploratory analyses to determine how symptoms changed over time and what factors (eg, demographic and app use) predicted changes in distress. Results: Analyses revealed statistically significant within-person decreases in overall distress (Young Person’s CORE; primary outcome) from baseline to 1 month with a small effect size (t42=2.21, P=.03, r=0.34); however, there was no evidence that scores significantly decreased from baseline to 3 months (W=1821, n=85, P=.16). We found that at 3 months, identifying as part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning community predicted greater decreases in distress; otherwise, no demographic factors were significant predictors. In a nonregistered exploratory analysis of a subsample of users who reported elevated distress at baseline, decreases in distress were seen at both 1 month (W=128, n=20, P=.02, r=0.52) and 3 months (W=682, n=42, P=.004, r=0.45). Conclusions: There may be short-term benefits associated with using the Alongside digital program. Further studies are required to determine potential preventative effects.

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 · 10.2196/73180

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Alongside is a multi-component platform combining social-emotional learning content with an AI chatbot, so the effect cannot be attributed to the conversational agent specifically.

    “Alongside is also a multi-component platform combining social-emotional learning content with an AI chatbot, so the effect cannot be attributed to the conversational agent specifically.”
  • The Alongside finding is suggestive rather than conclusive because the design was a single-arm pre-post evaluation with no control condition, the LGBTQ subgroup comprised 11 of 61 users, and the one-month test had six degrees of freedom.

    “The finding is suggestive rather than conclusive: the design was a single-arm pre-post evaluation with no control condition, the LGBTQ subgroup comprised 11 of 61 users, and the one-month test had six degrees of freedom.”
  • In an exploratory, non-preregistered subgroup analysis, LGBTQ identification predicted greater reductions in distress at one and three months among users with clinically elevated baseline distress in the Alongside program.

    “In an exploratory, non-preregistered subgroup analysis, LGBTQ identification predicted greater reductions in distress at one and three months among users with clinically elevated baseline distress.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. 10.1016/j.chc.2023.02.002 · DOI
  2. 10.1186/1471-244X-10-113 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094247 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s10567-024-00487-2 · DOI
  5. 10.1086/704958 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70312-8 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107023 · DOI
  8. Panchal, N, 2022, Encyclopedia of Health Services Research, 6
  9. Hoover, S, 2023, Scanlan Center for School Mental Health Practice Briefs, 1
  10. 10.2196/13050 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.06.008 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1055/s-0042-108647 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/15374416.2019.1683852 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1080/14733140902979722 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s10597-013-9619-1 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/0164027504268574 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1080/15374416.2017.1405353 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/camh.12128 · DOI
  19. 10.1037/ccp0000505.supp · DOI
  20. 10.1007/s12310-023-09598-7 · DOI
  21. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.1473 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cohen, K., Rapoport, A., Friis, E., Hill, S., Feldman, S., & Schleider, J.
Venue
JMIR Formative Research
Published
2025-10-08
Volume
9
Pages
e73180
ISSN
2561-326X
Cited by
9
References
8
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