PreprintCited by 63Digital Mental Health InterventionsCardiac Health and Mental HealthMedication Adherence and Compliance

Machine Learning for Predicting Adherence to Internet-Delivered Psychotherapy for Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety after Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the U-CARE Heart Trial (Preprint)

Open access
Wallert, John, Gustafson, Emelie, Held, Claes, Madison, Guy, Norlund, Fredrika, von Essen, Louise, Olsson, Erik Martin Gustaf·2018·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: BACKGROUND: Low adherence to recommended treatments is a multifactorial problem in rehabilitation for patients with myocardial infarction (MI). In a nationwide trial of internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (iCBT) for the high-risk subgroup of patients with MI also reporting symptoms of anxiety, depression, or both (MI-ANXDEP), adherence was low. Since low adherence to psychotherapy leads to a waste of therapeutic resources and risky treatment abortion in MI-ANXDEP patients, identifying early predictors for adherence is potentially valuable for effective targeted care. OBJECTIVE: Applied predictive modelling with supervised machine learning to investigate both established and novel predictors for iCBT adherence in MI-ANXDEP patients. METHODS: Data were from 90 MI-ANXDEP patients recruited from 25 hospitals in Sweden and randomized to treatment in the iCBT trial U-CARE Heart. Time-point of prediction was at completion of the first homework assignment. Adherence was defined as having completed at least the first two homework assignments within the 14-week treatment period. A supervised machine learning procedure was applied to identify the most potent predictors for adherence available at the first treatment session from a range of demographic, clinical, psychometric, and linguistic predictors. The internal binary classifier was a random forest model within a 3x10-fold cross-validated recursive feature elimination (RFE) resampling, which selected the final predictor subset which best differentiated adherers versus non-adherers. RESULTS: RESULTS: Patient mean age was 58.4 (9.4) years, 62% (56/90) were men, and 48% (43/90) were adherent. Out of the 34 potential predictors for adherence, RFE selected an optimal subset of 56% (19/34) (Accuracy 0.64, 95% CI 0.61-0.68, P < 0.01). The strongest predictors for adherence were in order of importance (1) self-assessed cardiac-related fear, (2) sex, and (3) the number of words the patient used to answer the first homework assignment. CONCLUSIONS: CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to iCBT for MI-ANXDEP patients was best predicted by cardiac-related fear and sex, consistent with previous research, but also by novel linguistic predictors from written patient behavior which conceivably indicate verbal ability or therapeutic alliance. Future research should investigate potential causal mechanisms, seek to determine what underlying constructs the linguistic predictors tap into, and whether these findings replicate for other interventions, outside of Sweden, in larger samples, and for patients with other conditions whom are offered iCBT. CLINICALTRIAL: TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01504191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01504191 (Archived at Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xWWSEQ22)

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/preprints.10754

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Wallert et al. (2018) reported that for patients participating in an eCBT program for post-myocardial infarction depression and anxiety, self-assessed cardiac-related fear, female sex, number of words used to complete the first homework, and self-rated depression were predictors of adherence with 64% accuracy.

    “Wallert et al. (2018) reported that for patients participating in an eCBT program for post-myocardial infarction depression and anxiety, self-assessed cardiac-related fear, female sex, number of words used to complete the first homework, and self-rated depression were predictors of adherence with 64% accuracy.”

    From Examining the role of AI technology in online mental healthcare: opportunities, challenges, and implications, a mixed-methods review (2024) · cites this paper as [94]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wallert et al. (2018) noted that contrary to the literature, education level and age did not show a strong predictive power in this study.

    “They noted that contrary to the literature, education level and age did not show a strong predictive power in this study (94).”
  • Wallert et al. (2018) noted that education level is a commonly reported predictive factor of treatment response in the literature regarding patients participating in eCBT.

    “Similarly, Wallert et al. (2018) noted that education level is a commonly reported predictive factor of treatment response, in the literature regarding patients participating in eCBT (94).”

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. [12]Alfonsson S Treatment Adherence in Internet-Based CBT: The Effects of Presentation, Support and Motivation [doctoral thesis] 2016 Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Uppsala University

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wallert, J., Gustafson, E., Held, C., Madison, G., Norlund, F., von Essen, L., & Olsson, E. M. G.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Umeå University (SE)
Corresponding author
Wallert, John
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2018-04-11
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
e10754-e10754
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2875602397
Cited by
63
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
online therapy, medication adherence, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, myocardial infarction, depression, anxiety, predictors of adherence, homework completion, sex differences, post-infarction rehabilitation, random forest, recursive feature elimination
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Psychotherapy, Internet

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