Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Digital interventions for the treatment of depression: A meta-analytic review.
Moshe, Isaac; Terhorst, Yannik; Philippi, Paula; Domhardt, Matthias; Cuijpers, Pim; Cristea, Ioana; Pulkki-Råback, Laura; Baumeister, Harald; Sander, Lasse B.
  • Moshe I; Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki.
  • Terhorst Y; Department of Research Methods, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University.
  • Philippi P; Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University.
  • Domhardt M; Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University.
  • Cuijpers P; Department of Clinical, Neuro-, and Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  • Cristea I; Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia.
  • Pulkki-Råback L; Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki.
  • Baumeister H; Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University.
  • Sander LB; Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg.
Psychol Bull ; 147(8): 749-786, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1569212
ABSTRACT
The high global prevalence of depression, together with the recent acceleration of remote care owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted increased interest in the efficacy of digital interventions for the treatment of depression. We provide a summary of the latest evidence base for digital interventions in the treatment of depression based on the largest study sample to date. A systematic literature search identified 83 studies (N = 15,530) that randomly allocated participants to a digital intervention for depression versus an active or inactive control condition. Overall heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 84%). Using a random-effects multilevel metaregression model, we found a significant medium overall effect size of digital interventions compared with all control conditions (g = .52). Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences between interventions and different control conditions (WLC g = .70; attention g = .36; TAU g = .31), significantly higher effect sizes in interventions that involved human therapeutic guidance (g = .63) compared with self-help interventions (g = .34), and significantly lower effect sizes for effectiveness trials (g = .30) compared with efficacy trials (g = .59). We found no significant difference in outcomes between smartphone-based apps and computer- and Internet-based interventions and no significant difference between human-guided digital interventions and face-to-face psychotherapy for depression, although the number of studies in both comparisons was low. Findings from the current meta-analysis provide evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of digital interventions for the treatment of depression for a variety of populations. However, reported effect sizes may be exaggerated because of publication bias, and compliance with digital interventions outside of highly controlled settings remains a significant challenge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Depression / COVID-19 Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Psychol Bull Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Depression / COVID-19 Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Psychol Bull Year: 2021 Document Type: Article