New research involving Oxford researchers has shown that a simple digital intervention that includes gameplay can dramatically reduce intrusive memories of trauma in a month, even to the point of being symptom-free after six months. This treatment was also very effective at reducing the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) more generally. The findings have been
It’s too good, and its funded by a corporation, and its got a very low sample size, and it’s tied in with some wacky “digital therapy solution”. I wouldn’t be surprised if the control groups actually worsened because the service just sucked and the tetris version included less of that service.
how would it possibly be bad in factors other than efficacy, like BetterHelp was due to data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism? this isn’t even online
99 is a more than enough sample size as this RCT’s Bayes factor is 114 and 15.8 for better efficacy than -control and -regular treatment respectively, which corresponds to “extreme” and “strong evidence” (Lee and Wagenmakers 2013, p. 105; adjusted from Jeffreys, 1961). The Lancet also peer-reviewed the claim “The Bayesian adaptive trial design enabled efficient evaluation with early stopping when convincing evidence was reached (n=99).[2]”
indeed further testing is needed to establish subgroup effects and improve generalizability but this is already quite promising
that was the opposite of what i meant; sorry i was unclear. when I said “how would it possibly be bad in factors other than efficacy, like BetterHelp was due to data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism” i meant that BetterHelp had many reasons it was bad other than efficacy like data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism, and asked how the tetris treatment would replicate BetterHelp’s notorious woes
It’s too good, and its funded by a corporation, and its got a very low sample size, and it’s tied in with some wacky “digital therapy solution”. I wouldn’t be surprised if the control groups actually worsened because the service just sucked and the tetris version included less of that service.
I am also treating this one limited study with a huge grain of salt, but I’m an eternal optimist so I hope my pessimism is wrong.
it’s not too limited just to assess general efficacy either
I’ll copy my reply from below as well:
how would it possibly be bad in factors other than efficacy, like BetterHelp was due to data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism? this isn’t even online
99 is a more than enough sample size as this RCT’s Bayes factor is 114 and 15.8 for better efficacy than -control and -regular treatment respectively, which corresponds to “extreme” and “strong evidence” (Lee and Wagenmakers 2013, p. 105; adjusted from Jeffreys, 1961). The Lancet also peer-reviewed the claim “The Bayesian adaptive trial design enabled efficient evaluation with early stopping when convincing evidence was reached (n=99).[2]”
indeed further testing is needed to establish subgroup effects and improve generalizability but this is already quite promising
Fuck off, dude, you expect me to treat you seriously when you defend a company that commodified mental illness?
i have never supported or defended BetterHelp
You said the only bad thing about it was low efficacy. Fuck you.
that was the opposite of what i meant; sorry i was unclear. when I said “how would it possibly be bad in factors other than efficacy, like BetterHelp was due to data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism” i meant that BetterHelp had many reasons it was bad other than efficacy like data nightmares and advertising a different mechanism, and asked how the tetris treatment would replicate BetterHelp’s notorious woes