Randomized Trial of the Effectiveness of Videoconferencing-Based Versus Message-Based Psychotherapy on Depression.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the engagement, clinical outcomes, and adverse events of text or voice message-based psychotherapy (MBP) versus videoconferencing-based psychotherapy (VCP) among adults with depression. METHODS: The study used a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial design with data drawn from phase 1 of a two-phase small business innovation research study. In total, 215 adults (ages ≥18 years) with depression received care from Talkspace, a digital mental health care company. Participants were initially randomly assigned to receive either asynchronous MBP or weekly VCP. All therapists provided evidence-based treatments such as cognitive-behavioral therapy. After 6 weeks of treatment, participants whose condition did not show a response on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or was rated as having not improved on the Clinical Global Impressions scale were randomly reassigned to receive either weekly VCP plus MBP or monthly VCP plus MBP. Longitudinal mixed-effects models with piecewise linear time trends applied to multiple imputed data sets were used to address missingness of data. RESULTS: Participants who were initially assigned to the MBP condition engaged with their therapists over more weeks than did participants in the VCP condition (7.8 weeks for MBP vs. 4.9 weeks for VCP; p<0.001). No meaningful differences were observed between the two groups in rates of change by 6 or 12 weeks for depression, anxiety, disability, or global ratings of improvement. Neither treatment resulted in any adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MBP appears to be a viable alternative to VCP for treating adults with depression.

Application of an Adapted Health Action Process Approach Model to Predict Engagement With a Digital Mental Health Website: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital Mental Health (DMH) tools are an effective, readily accessible, and affordable form of mental health support. However, sustained engagement with DMH is suboptimal, with limited research on DMH engagement. The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) is an empirically supported theory of health behavior adoption and maintenance. Whether this model also explains DMH tool engagement remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether an adapted HAPA model predicted engagement with DMH via a self-guided website. METHODS: Visitors to the Mental Health America (MHA) website were invited to complete a brief survey measuring HAPA constructs. This cross-sectional study tested the adapted HAPA model with data collected using voluntary response sampling from 16,078 sessions (15,619 unique IP addresses from United States residents) on the MHA website from October 2021 through February 2022. Model fit was examined via structural equation modeling in predicting two engagement outcomes: (1) choice to engage with DMH (ie, spending 3 or more seconds on an MHA page, excluding screening pages) and (2) level of engagement (ie, time spent on MHA pages and number of pages visited, both excluding screening pages). RESULTS: Participants chose to engage with the MHA website in 94.3% (15,161/16,078) of the sessions. Perceived need (ß=.66; P<.001), outcome expectancies (ß=.49; P<.001), self-efficacy (ß=.44; P<.001), and perceived risk (ß=.17-.18; P<.001) significantly predicted intention, and intention (ß=.77; P<.001) significantly predicted planning. Planning was not significantly associated with choice to engage (ß=.03; P=.18). Within participants who chose to engage, the association between planning with level of engagement was statistically significant (ß=.12; P<.001). Model fit indices for both engagement outcomes were poor, with the adapted HAPA model accounting for only 0.1% and 1.4% of the variance in choice to engage and level of engagement, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the HAPA model did not predict engagement with DMH via a self-guided website. More research is needed to identify appropriate theoretical frameworks and practical strategies (eg, digital design) to optimize DMH tool engagement.

Participant retention in a fully remote trial of digital psychotherapy: Comparison of incentive types.

Numerous studies have found that long term retention is very low in remote clinical studies (>4 weeks) and to date there is limited information on the best methods to ensure retention. The ability to retain participants in the completion of key assessments periods is critical to all clinical research, and to date little is known as to what methods are best to encourage participant retention. To study incentive-based retention methods we randomized 215 US adults (18+ years) who agreed to participate in a sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial to either high monetary incentive (HMI, $125 USD) and combined low monetary incentive ($75 USD) plus alternative incentive (LMAI). Participants were asked to complete daily and weekly surveys for a total of 12 weeks, which included a tailoring assessment around week 5 to determine who should be stepped up and rerandomized to one of two augmentation conditions. Key assessment points were weeks 5 and 12. There was no difference in participant retention at week 5 (tailoring event), with approximately 75% of the sample completing the week-5 survey. By week 10, the HMI condition retained approximately 70% of the sample, compared to 60% of the LMAI group. By week 12, all differences were attenuated. Differences in completed measures were not significant between groups. At the end of the study, participants were asked the impressions of the incentive condition they were assigned and asked for suggestions for improving engagement. There were no significant differences between conditions on ratings of the fairness of compensation, study satisfaction, or study burden, but study burden, intrinsic motivation and incentive fairness did influence participation. Men were also more likely to drop out of the study than women. Qualitative analysis from both groups found the following engagement suggestions: desire for feedback on survey responses and an interest in automated sharing of individual survey responses with study therapists to assist in treatment. Participants in the LMAI arm indicated that the alternative incentives were engaging and motivating. In sum, while we were able to increase engagement above what is typical for such study, more research is needed to truly improve long term retention in remote trials.

Mental Health and the Perceived Usability of Digital Mental Health Tools Among Essential Workers and People Unemployed Due to COVID-19: Cross-sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has created serious mental health consequences for essential workers or people who have become unemployed as a result of the pandemic. Digital mental health tools have the potential to address this problem in a timely and efficient manner. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to document the extent of digital mental health tool (DMHT) use by essential workers and those unemployed due to COVID-19, including asking participants to rate the usability and user burden of the DMHT they used most to cope. We also explored which aspects and features of DMHTs were seen as necessary for managing stress during a pandemic by having participants design their own ideal DMHT. METHODS: A total of 2000 people were recruited from an online research community (Prolific) to complete a one-time survey about mental health symptoms, DMHT use, and preferred digital mental health features. RESULTS: The final sample included 1987 US residents that identified as either an essential worker or someone who was unemployed due to COVID-19. Almost three-quarters of the sample (1479/1987, 74.8%) reported clinically significant emotional distress. Only 14.2% (277/1957) of the sample used a DMHT to cope with stress associated with COVID-19. Of those who used DMHTs to cope with COVID-19, meditation apps were the most common (119/261, 45.6%). Usability was broadly in the acceptable range, although participants unemployed due to COVID-19 were less likely to report user burden with DMHTs than essential workers (t198.1=-3.89, P<.001). Individuals with emotional distress reported higher financial burden for their DMHT than nondistressed individuals (t69.0=-3.21, P=.01). When the sample was provided the option to build their own DMHT, the most desired features were a combination of mindfulness/meditation (1271/1987, 64.0%), information or education (1254/1987, 63.1%), distraction tools (1170/1987, 58.9%), symptom tracking for mood and sleep (1160/1987, 58.4%), link to mental health resources (1140/1987, 57.4%), and positive psychology (1131/1986, 56.9%). Subgroups by employment, distress, and previous DMHT use status had varied preferences. Of those who did not use a DMHT to cope with COVID-19, most indicated that they did not consider looking for such a tool to help with coping (1179/1710, 68.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential need for DMHTs, this study found that the use of such tools remains similar to prepandemic levels. This study also found that regardless of the level of distress or even past experience using an app to cope with COVID-19, it is possible to develop a COVID-19 coping app that would appeal to a majority of essential workers and unemployed persons.