Q: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
We’re rating this one a cautious “Satisfactory.”  The story offers no information about the cost to a patient of a digital therapist, but it does reflect on the cost of creating and maintaining a similar app. This story does a good job of summarizing the benefits that accrued in the course of several studies. Risks are not broached here. This is an issue for a topic such as this, as one could imagine readers expressing concern about the efficacy of a non-human “therapist.” The story actually acknowledges that concern in its second paragraph (“It [the use of technology] might seem surprising, since therapy, more than many other kinds of medicine, is so focused on the relationship between patient and therapist.” But it never digs into the possible debits of wrestling with moderate depression online. We also think the story should have discussed the risk patients being victimized in an open source or relatively open chat room or other online group setting. One important element of psychiatry is privacy and patient confidentiality. Three studies are summarized in this text and, although those summaries are brief, the story allows readers to link to the texts themselves for more details. At least one of those studies, a meta-analysis, gathered the small number of experiments (13) that made explicit comparisons between internet-delivered and face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy. The text makes it clear that internet-based therapies may be more valuable for individuals with mild to moderate depression than for persons with severe depression, who would be more likely to seek face-to-face therapy regimens. But, in a word of caution, does that encourage people to overdiagnose themselves? That’s something to consider. Another cautious “Satisfactory.” One source is clearly identified as someone independent of one of the studies cited. Two others experts are not so identified but are not listed as coauthors on any of the studies. Funding for those studies is not mentioned. It’s worth noting here that two of the sources seem to be heads of institutes that are involved in the development of technological/Internet-based treatment approaches; both could benefit financially from being able to treat many more patients online. The piece discusses several interventions, and offers a graphic representation of recovery rates for individuals in Great Britain across five therapeutic modalities. But, there is no mention of psychiatric medications. Since those are frequently helpful in short-term situations and at least for moderate depression, they should have been included in the comparisons. The story identifies several therapeutic apps and, in a video, shows one individual using a “mobile therapy platform” to text and videochat with a therapist. Several comments in the story about the continuing evolution of these applications suggest that these strategies remain works in progress. A bit of historical information in the story makes it clear that online therapeutic agents have been around—in various stages of development—for more than a decade. This story integrates studies and sources, making reliance on news releases unlikely.
A:
To Treat Depression, Try a Digital Therapist