(PS10-78) Relationships Between Hope, Strengths Use, and Depression During a Transdiagnostic Digital Mental Health Intervention

Hope is the perception that one has the agency and pathways to achieve goals, while strengths use is the perception of actively engaging character traits in a manner conducive to optimal functioning (Snyder, 1996; Wood et al., 2011). While hope and strengths use are both associated with increased self-efficacy and decreased depression severity (Li et al, 2021; Ding & Yu, 2020; Duan et al., 2018), their interaction has not been examined in the context of psychotherapy for emotional disorders. The present study explores the relationships between hope, strengths use and depression during a randomized clinical trial comparing an online version of the Unified Protocol (iUP; Barlow et al., 2018) to the iUP+, which targets positive emotion regulation. Participants (n = 120, M(age)= 34.03, 71.7% White; 73.3% Female) completed the State Hope Scale (SHS; Snyder, 1996), Strengths Use Scale (SUS; Wood et al., 2011), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), at baseline, weeks 4, 8, and 12. Changes in DASS-21 depression, SHS, and SUS and their interactions were examined through mixed ANOVAs. 

There was no significant interaction between condition and time on total SHS, SUS, or depression. Depression significantly decreased (F(3,222) = 6.922, p < .001, ηp² = .086), while SHS and SUS significantly increased (F(1,74) = 13.593, p < .001, ηp² = .155; F(3,71) = 15.174, p < .001, ηp² = .176) over time. Significant interactions between SHS and time on depression were found at baseline (F(3,207) = 9.720, p < .001, ηp² = .123), week 4 (F(3,207) = 4.517, p < .01, ηp² = .061), week 8 (F(3,207) = 2.759, p < .05, ηp² = .038), and post-treatment (F(3,207) = 10.691, p < .001, ηp² = .134); therefore 3.8-13.4% of the variance in depression was explained by the interaction between SHS and time. There were significant interactions between SUS and time at baseline (F(3,198) = 3.068, p < .05, ηp² = .044) and post treatment (F(3,198) = 4.159, p < .05, ηp² = .046), therefore 4.4-4.6% of the variance in depression was accounted for by the relationship between SUS and time. There was a significant interaction between SUS and time on SHS at week 4 (F(3,201) = 8.798, p < .001, ηp² = .116), week 8 (F(3,201) = 3.063, p < .05, ηp² = .044), and post treatment (F(3,201) = 8.620, p < .001, ηp² = .114), therefore 4.4-11.6% of the variance in SHS was explained by the interaction between SUS and time. There was a significant interaction between SHS and time on SUS at baseline (F(3,201) = 4.256, p < .01, ηp² = .160), week 4 (F(3,201) = 6.007, p < .001, ηp² = .082), and post treatment (F(3,201) = 6.532, p < .001, ηp² = .089), therefore 8.2-16% of the variance in SUS was accounted for by the relationship between SUS and time.

These preliminary analyses indicate that depression decreased while SHS and SUS increased during the intervention. Both SHS and SUS accounted for changes in depression, while hope tended to have greater effects on depression than SUS. There were interactions between SHS and SUS at multiple timepoints, suggesting reciprocal influence between SHS and SUS during treatment. These findings suggest that SHS and SUS may be interrelated cognitive-behavioral processes. Implications for refining transdiagnostic treatment will be discussed.