A mixed methods evaluation of a pilot open trial of a mentor-guided digital intervention for youth anxiety.

IF 7.7
PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2026-02-23 eCollection Date: 2026-02-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001187
Emma C Wolfe, Alexandra Werntz, Audrey Michel, Yiyang Zhang, Mark Rucker, Mehdi Boukhechba, Laura E Barnes, Jean E Rhodes, Bethany A Teachman
{"title":"A mixed methods evaluation of a pilot open trial of a mentor-guided digital intervention for youth anxiety.","authors":"Emma C Wolfe, Alexandra Werntz, Audrey Michel, Yiyang Zhang, Mark Rucker, Mehdi Boukhechba, Laura E Barnes, Jean E Rhodes, Bethany A Teachman","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0001187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"5 2","pages":"e0001187"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12928454/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

一种混合方法评估一个试点公开试验的导师指导的数字干预青少年焦虑。
数字心理健康干预(DMHIs),如认知偏见修正解释(CBM-I),为缺乏症青少年增加获得焦虑治疗的机会提供了希望,但有关其疗效的数据参差不齐。辅助专业人员和其他关心青少年生活的成年人,如非父母的成人导师,可能能够支持使用DMHIs并增加青少年的参与度。目前的混合方法评估是一项试点公开试验,测试了在导师/学员对组中实施MindTrails Teen(基于应用程序的、基于网络的MindTrails CBM-I干预的青年适应版本)的可行性、可接受性和初步效果。30名参与者(15对)参与了为期5周的远程数据收集。参与者的一个子集(n = 7名导师;n = 7名学员)也提供了定性反馈。干预结果(焦虑症状的改变、积极和消极解释偏差)、可行性和可接受性通过定性访谈、问卷得分的定量变化、计划完成度和保真度指标进行评估。将结果与预先登记的基准进行比较。在青少年中观察到焦虑变化的巨大效应。在积极解释偏倚的变化中观察到小到中等的影响,而在消极解释偏倚中没有发现变化。考虑到解释偏倚测量的内部一致性非常低,且缺乏对照对照组,应谨慎考虑干预结果。导师和青年对干预的可接受性评价为积极的。导师达到了可行性基准,但青年没有达到。定性反馈表明,导师认为这款应用对他们的学员有帮助,发现它要么改善了他们的关系,要么没有影响他们的关系,但也发现了实施的挑战。年轻人总体上认为这款应用很有帮助,但也发现了阻碍他们参与的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书