Trial reportJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2026
Randomized controlled trial of smartphone-based interpretation bias intervention for anxiety and depression.
Trial report in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized controlled trial of smartphone-based interpretation bias intervention for anxiety and depression.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2026Trial
- Article
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
objectiveHabitWorks (HW) is a personalized, transdiagnostic, smartphone-based interpretation bias intervention for depression and anxiety that has demonstrated feasibility and acceptability in prior pilot studies. This preregistered randomized controlled trial (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EJ89T; Silverman, Kovarsky Rotta, et al., 2025) tested the effectiveness of HW compared with a symptom tracking (ST) control condition.
methodA nonclinical community sample of U.S. adults with at least mild anxiety and depression symptoms (N = 340; Mage = 33.04 years, 57.4% women, 60.6% White, 14.7% Black, 11.2% Asian, 10.9% Multiracial, 22.1% Hispanic/Latine) were randomly assigned to complete three weekly interpretation bias exercises and once weekly depression and anxiety symptom surveys (HW) or three weekly depression and anxiety symptom surveys (ST) for 4 weeks.
resultsA priori benchmarks for retention, adherence, and satisfaction were achieved: 77.8% of HW participants were still using the app in Week 4, 43.7% achieved perfect adherence, and app usability and acceptability were rated positively. As hypothesized, HW was superior to ST at improving negative and benign interpretation biases (Word-Sentence Association Paradigm) and functional impairment (Work and Social Adjustment Scale); and HW (vs. ST) participants reported significantly greater global improvement (Clinical Global Impressions Scale-Improvement Self-Report) and subjective engagement (Twente Engagement with eHealth Technologies Scale) at postintervention. Unexpectedly, while depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7) improved significantly, these changes were not unique to HW.
conclusionsHW is an engaging and scalable intervention that may be effective for improving overall severity and functioning. Further validation of effectiveness for specific symptom domains is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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.