ArticleDer Nervenarzt2026
[de:)press®: How expectations shape treatment satisfaction? : Observation of an app-based cognitive control training as an add-on therapy for people with depression].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital interventions such as de:)press®, a cognitive control training, increasingly supplement standard depression treatment. Psychological factors, such as treatment expectation (TE), gain importance as they can influence user satisfaction (US).
methodIn a randomized controlled trial, the relationship between TE and US was examined in 58 individuals with unipolar depression. The intervention group used de:)press® for 6 weeks. The factors TE (T1), US and usage frequency (UF; T2) were assessed via questionnaires and app data. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted.
resultsThe TE had a significant direct effect on US, which was not mediated by UF. No moderating effect of medication was found. The app received high satisfaction ratings, especially regarding its usability, while the perceived therapeutic effect was rated more moderately.
conclusionThe findings highlight the relevance of subjective factors such as TE in evaluating digital interventions. Objective usage played a lesser role. Addressing user expectations can enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of digital health applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41686246What 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.