Brooke C Schneider1, Johanna Schröder2, Thomas Berger3, Fritz Hohagen4, Björn Meyer5, Christina Späth4, Wolfgang Greiner6, Martin Hautzinger7, Wolfgang Lutz8, Matthias Rose9, Eik Vettorazzi10, Steffen Moritz2, Jan Philipp Klein4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Sex Research and Forensic Psychiatry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: b.schneider@uke.de. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Lübeck University, Lübeck, Germany. 5. GAIA AG, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Psychology, City, University of London, London, UK. 6. Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany. 7. Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 8. Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany. 9. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany; Quantitative Health Sciences, Outcomes Measurement Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 10. Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Psychological online interventions (POIs) for depression have demonstrated promising effects. However, there are fewer randomized controlled studies on POIs among older adults with depression. The goal of the present study was to compare the use and efficacy of Deprexis, an online intervention for depression, among Millennials (18-35 years) and Baby Boomers (50-65 years). METHODS: We completed a secondary data analysis on a subset (N = 577) of participants in the EVIDENT trial, a parallel-groups, pragmatic, randomized, controlled single-blind study, which compared a 12-week POI (Deprexis) to care as usual (CAU). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 months (post-assessment) and 6 months (follow-up). The main outcome of interest was change on self-rated depression severity (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Compared to Millennials, Boomers used the intervention significantly more often (d = 0.45) and for a longer duration (d = 0.46), and endorsed more positive attitudes towards POIs (d = 0.14). There was no significant Age Group by Intervention Group interaction for change in PHQ-9. The post-assessment between-group effect size (intervention vs. CAU control) for Millennials and Boomers were d = 0.26 and d = 0.39, respectively, and were stable at follow-up (d = 0.37 and d = 0.39). LIMITATIONS: Age-based dichotomization may not accurately represent participants' experiences with and use of technology. CONCLUSIONS: The POI examined in this trial was superior to CAU and was comparably effective among groups of adults defined as Millennials and Baby Boomers. Adults of the Baby Boomer generation who participate in POIs may have more positive attitudes towards POIs compared to their younger counterparts.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Psychological online interventions (POIs) for depression have demonstrated promising effects. However, there are fewer randomized controlled studies on POIs among older adults with depression. The goal of the present study was to compare the use and efficacy of Deprexis, an online intervention for depression, among Millennials (18-35 years) and Baby Boomers (50-65 years). METHODS: We completed a secondary data analysis on a subset (N = 577) of participants in the EVIDENT trial, a parallel-groups, pragmatic, randomized, controlled single-blind study, which compared a 12-week POI (Deprexis) to care as usual (CAU). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 months (post-assessment) and 6 months (follow-up). The main outcome of interest was change on self-rated depression severity (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Compared to Millennials, Boomers used the intervention significantly more often (d = 0.45) and for a longer duration (d = 0.46), and endorsed more positive attitudes towards POIs (d = 0.14). There was no significant Age Group by Intervention Group interaction for change in PHQ-9. The post-assessment between-group effect size (intervention vs. CAU control) for Millennials and Boomers were d = 0.26 and d = 0.39, respectively, and were stable at follow-up (d = 0.37 and d = 0.39). LIMITATIONS: Age-based dichotomization may not accurately represent participants' experiences with and use of technology. CONCLUSIONS: The POI examined in this trial was superior to CAU and was comparably effective among groups of adults defined as Millennials and Baby Boomers. Adults of the Baby Boomer generation who participate in POIs may have more positive attitudes towards POIs compared to their younger counterparts.
Authors: Martina A Clarke; Ann L Fruhling; Marilyn Sitorius; Thomas A Windle; Tamara L Bernard; John R Windle Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sarah Soyeon Oh; Kyoung-A Kim; Minsu Kim; Jaeuk Oh; Sang Hui Chu; JiYeon Choi Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Judith Borghouts; Elizabeth Eikey; Gloria Mark; Cinthia De Leon; Stephen M Schueller; Margaret Schneider; Nicole Stadnick; Kai Zheng; Dana Mukamel; Dara H Sorkin Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Cassandra Bowman; Joseph Lunyera; Aviel Alkon; L Ebony Boulware; Jennifer St Clair Russell; Jennie Riley; Jeffrey C Fink; Clarissa Diamantidis Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-05-28
Authors: Zoe Moon; Mira Zuchowski; Rona Moss-Morris; Myra S Hunter; Sam Norton; Lyndsay D Hughes Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.603