Urban and Rural Differences in the Efficacy of a Mobile Health Depression Treatment for Young Adults

Jeremy Mennis (), J. Douglas Coatsworth, Michael Russell, Nikola Zaharakis, Aaron R. Brown and Michael J. Mason
Additional contact information
Jeremy Mennis: Department of Geography, Environment and Urban Studies, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
J. Douglas Coatsworth: College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
Michael Russell: Department of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Nikola Zaharakis: Center for Behavioral Health Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
Aaron R. Brown: College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
Michael J. Mason: Center for Behavioral Health Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

IJERPH, 2024, vol. 21, issue 12, 1-11

Abstract: Depression among young adults represents a growing health problem in the U.S., but access to effective treatment remains a challenge. Mobile health (mHealth) approaches promise to deliver accessible and effective depression treatment; however, questions remain regarding how mHealth depression treatment efficacy may vary geographically based on urban and rural environmental contexts. The present study addresses this knowledge gap by leveraging data from a randomized clinical trial of an mHealth depression treatment called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy-text (CBT-txt) as applied to a sample of 103 U.S. young adults (ages 18–25). Prior research has demonstrated the efficacy of CBT-txt to reduce depressive symptoms. In the present study, we conduct an exploratory, post hoc analysis employing moderated growth curve modeling to investigate whether observed treatment efficacy differed between study participants residing in rural versus urban areas. The findings indicate that CBT-txt treatment effects in terms of reducing depression symptoms were significantly stronger for young adults residing in rural, as compared to urban, regions (β = 13.759, 95% CI = 0.796, 26.723, p < 0.038). We speculate that this is because of the lack of mental healthcare resources in rural, as compared to urban areas, as well as the greater level of environmental stressors, such as artificial light and noise, found in cities, which may mitigate treatment effects.

Keywords: depression; mhealth; treatment; intervention; urban; rural; clinical trial; moderation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/12/1572/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/12/1572/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:12:p:1572-:d:1530308

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().