ArticlePLOS digital health2026
A mixed methods evaluation of a pilot open trial of a mentor-guided digital intervention for youth anxiety.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs), such as cognitive bias modification for interpretations (CBM-I), offer promise for increasing access to anxiety treatment among underserved adolescents, but data regarding their efficacy are mixed. Paraprofessionals and other caring adults in youth's lives, such as non-parental adult mentors, may be able to support the use of DMHIs and increase teen engagement. The present mixed methods evaluation of a pilot open trial tested the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of implementing MindTrails Teen (an app-based, youth-adapted version of the web-based MindTrails CBM-I intervention) within mentor/mentee dyads. Thirty participants (composed of 15 dyads) participated in remote data collection for 5 weeks. A subset of participants (n = 7 mentors; n = 7 mentees) also provided qualitative feedback. Intervention outcomes (change in anxiety symptoms, and positive and negative interpretation bias), feasibility, and acceptability were assessed via a mix of qualitative interviews, quantitative change in questionnaire scores, and program completion and fidelity metrics. Outcomes were compared to pre-registered benchmarks. Large effect sizes were observed for changes in anxiety among youth. Small to medium effects were observed for change in positive interpretation bias, and no change was found for negative interpretation bias. Intervention outcomes should be considered with caution given very low internal consistency of the interpretation bias measure and the lack of a control comparison group. Acceptability of the intervention was rated positively by mentors and youth. Feasibility benchmarks were met for mentors but not for youth. Qualitative feedback indicated mentors perceived the app as helpful to their mentees, found that it either improved or did not affect their relationship, but also identified implementation challenges. Youth overall perceived the app as helpful but identified barriers to engagement.
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.