Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The disruptive potential of generative AI (GenAI) tools to academic labour is potentially vast. Yet as we argue herein, such tools also represent a continuation of the inequities inherent to academia’s prestige economy and the intensified hierarchy and labour precarisation endemic to universities as prestige institutions. In a recent survey of n = 284 UK-based academics, reasons were put forward for avoiding GenAI tools. These responses surface concerns about automative technologies corrupting academic identity and inauthenticating scholarly practice; concerns that are salient to all who participate within and benefit from the work of scholarly communities. In discussion of these survey results, we explore ambivalence about whether GenAI tools expedite the acquisition or depletion of prestige demanded of academics, especially where GenAI tools are adopted to increase scholarly productivity. We also appraise whether, far from helping academics cope with a work climate of hyper-intensifcation, GenAI tools ultimately exacerbate their vulnerability, status-based peripheralisation, and self-estrangement.
The disruptive potential of generative AI (GenAI) tools to academic labour is potentially vast. Yet as we argue herein, such tools also represent a continuation of the inequities inherent to academia’s prestige economy and the intensified hierarchy and labour precarisation endemic to universities as prestige institutions. In a recent survey of n = 284 UK-based academics, reasons were put forward for avoiding GenAI tools. These responses surface concerns about automative technologies corrupting academic identity and inauthenticating scholarly practice; concerns that are salient to all who participate within and benefit from the work of scholarly communities. In discussion of these survey results, we explore ambivalence about whether GenAI tools expedite the acquisition or depletion of prestige demanded of academics, especially where GenAI tools are adopted to increase scholarly productivity. We also appraise whether, far from helping academics cope with a work climate of hyper-intensifcation, GenAI tools ultimately exacerbate their vulnerability, status-based peripheralisation, and self-estrangement.
BACKGROUND As digital interventions gain prominence in mental health care, they present opportunities to improve access and scalability. Despite their potential, the overall impact of digital Behavioral Activation (BA) interventions across different formats and populations is not yet fully understood. Further research is necessary to evaluate their effectiveness across settings and optimize their application. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the characteristics and functions of digital BA interventions, evaluate their effects on patient outcomes, identify limitations, and highlight gaps in the existing research to guide future directions. METHODS A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, and ClinicalTrials.gov) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of digital BA interventions for depression and anxiety. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses, using a random-effects model, were performed on outcomes such as depression, anxiety, quality of life (QoL), BA scores, functioning, disability, and stress. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the I² statistic. Six studies that did not meet meta-analysis criteria underwent narrative synthesis. RESULTS Eighteen studies were included, covering three intervention types: (1) internet-based BA (iBA), which delivers online therapies to foster new behavioral activities for depression management; (2) electronic messaging-based BA, involving prompts to support behavior change; and (3) telehealth-based BA, providing remote healthcare services. Of these, twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. Digital BA interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms at 2 months (p < 0.00001, I² = 0%), 3 months (p = 0.001, I² = 51%), and 6 months (p = 0.009, I² = 29%) post-treatment, but not at 12 months (p = 0.82, I² = 89%). BA scores showed significant improvement at 6 months (p < 0.00001, I² = 0%). QoL also improved significantly at 3 months (p = 0.002, I² = 22%) and 6 months (p = 0.009, I² = 0%), while stress levels were significantly reduced at 3 months (p = 0.0005, I² = 25%). Anxiety and functioning/disability outcomes did not show significant changes at 3 or 6 months. CONCLUSIONS Digital BA interventions offer meaningful short-to-medium-term benefits for alleviating depressive symptoms and improving QoL, though their impact diminishes by 12 months. Variations in intervention types, guidance levels, and treatment durations underscore the need for future studies to refine these interventions for specific populations. Further research should address the long-term effectiveness and disentangle the role of BA in multi-component approaches.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.