Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40764076›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Precision computerised cognitive behavioural therapy (cCBT) intervention for adolescents with depression (SPARX-UK): protocol for the process evaluation of a pilot randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Kareem Khan, Camilla May Babbage, Kirsty Sprange, Charlotte Lucy Hall, Adam Parker, Chris Greenhalgh, Matthew Jeffery, Mathijs Lucassen, Sally Merry, Vibhore Prasad and 8 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Kareem KhanNIHR MindTech Medtech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Camilla May BabbageNIHR MindTech Medtech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Camilla.Babbage@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6337-3352
Kirsty SprangeNottingham Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6443-7242
Charlotte Lucy HallNIHR MindTech Medtech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5412-6165
Adam ParkerNIHR MindTech Medtech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Chris GreenhalghSchool of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Matthew JefferySingle Point of Access, Oxfordshire Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Mathijs LucassenSchool of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sally MerrySchool of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Vibhore PrasadKing's College London, London, UK.
Karolina StasiakSchool of Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Boliang GuoMental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Christopher R TenchMental Health & Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9067-0494
Hannah WrightNIHR MindTech Medtech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Paul StallardDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Chris HollisNIHR MindTech Medtech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Digital Youth
Digital Youth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhile digital technologies can increase the availability and access to evidence-based interventions, little is known about how users engage with them and the mechanisms associated with effective outcomes. Process evaluations are an important component in understanding the aforementioned factors. The 'SPARX-UK' study is a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility trial evaluating personalised human-supported (from an 'eCoach') vs a self-directed computerised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention (cCBT), called SPARX (Smart, Positive, Active, Realistic, X-factor thoughts), aimed at adolescents with mild to moderate depression. We are comparing supported vs self-directed delivery of SPARX to establish which format should be used in a proposed definitive trial of SPARX. The control is a waitlist group. We will conduct a process evaluation alongside the trial to determine how the intervention is implemented and provide context for interpreting the feasibility trial outcomes. We will also look at the acceptability of SPARX and how users engage with the intervention. This protocol paper describes the rationale, aims and methodology of the SPARX-UK trial process evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The process evaluation will use a mixed-methods design following the UK Medical Research Council's 2015 guidelines, comprising quantitative and qualitative data collection. This will include analysing data usage of participants in the intervention arms; purposively sampled, semi-structured interviews of adolescents, parents/guardians, eCoaches and clinicians/practitioners from the SPARX-UK trial; and analysis of qualitative comments from a survey from those who dropped out early from the trial. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively. We will use thematic analysis in a framework approach to analyse qualitative data. Quantitative and qualitative data will be mixed and integrated to provide an understanding of how the intervention was implemented and how adolescents interacted with the intervention. This process evaluation will explore the experiences of adolescent participants, parents/guardians, eCoaches and clinicians/practitioners in relation to a complex digital intervention. ETHICS: Ethical approval was granted by the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority South West - Cornwall & Plymouth Research Ethics Committee (Ethics Ref: 22/SW/0149). DISSEMINATION: Contextualising how the intervention was implemented, and the variations in uptake and engagement, will help us to understand the trial findings in greater depth. The findings from this process evaluation will also inform the decision about whether and how to proceed with a full randomised controlled trial, as well as the development of more effective interventions which can be personalised more precisely via varying levels of human support. We plan to publish the findings of the process evaluation and the wider project in peer-reviewed journals, as well as disseminate via academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN15124804. Registered on 16 January 2023, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15124804.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyDepressionTherapy, Computer-AssistedAdolescentFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsProcess Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignUnited KingdomAdolescentsDepression & mood disordersDigital TechnologyMENTAL HEALTHProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID40764076
PMCPMC12336577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.