Trial reportJournal of affective disorders2026
Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of digital mental health intervention engagement among treatment-seeking psychiatric outpatients.
Trial report in Journal of affective disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have shown promise improving depression, anxiety, and psychiatric distress, yet real-world engagement remains low. Increasing engagement has great potential to improve the impact of DMHIs, but little is known about the drivers of engagement in naturalistic settings. To better understand predictors of engagement, we examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with DMHI usage among a large clinical sample of adults.
method1223 adults (74% White, 68% women, Mage = 36.8 years) with scheduled intake appointments for outpatient psychiatric services were randomized to either a mindfulness-based app (Headspace) or a CBT-based app (SilverCloud). Usage data were automatically collected, and participants were neither required nor compensated to use the apps.
resultsParticipants engaged with their assigned DMHIs a median of 8 days, with 88.2% of participants using their assigned DMHI at least once. Participants engaged with Headspace for more than twice as many days [IRR (95% CI) = 2.4 (2.1, 2.7)] as SilverCloud. Female sex, white race, a college degree, and older age up to 60 predicted greater engagement. Further, depression severity was associated with engagement in a non-linear manner for those assigned to Headspace, with less engagement at minimal/mild and severe symptoms compared to moderate and moderately-severe symptoms.
conclusionsThese findings indicate meaningful differences in engagement between DMHIs based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. There may be opportunities to improve engagement by tailoring DMHI offerings, with a particular emphasis on meeting the needs of less-engaged populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.