[Efficiency-Focussed Assessment of Internet-Based Interventions: a Study Protocol]. / Wirksamkeitsfokussierte Bewertung von internetbasierten Interventionen: ein Studienprotokoll.

BACKGROUND: The availability of internet-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorder is steadily growing and is also included in the German health care system. However, there is still room for improvement in terms of the information available to users and practitioners, particularly with regard to the effectiveness of internet-based interventions. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate internet-based interventions for the treatment of mental disorder, listed in the DiGA-Verzeichnis. A user-friendly description of positively evaluated interventions will be made available for interested people at psychenet.de. METHODS: By means of predefined criteria for intervention identification, evaluation and subsequent publication on psychenet.de, a methodological sound and transparent procedure will be established and put into practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study, as research on secondary data was conducted. Relevant professional, stakeholder and patient associations will be informed about the information offered at psychenet.de.

[Acceptance and Use of the e-Mental Health Website - www.psychenet.de]. / Akzeptanz und Nutzung einer Website mit Gesundheitsinformationen zu psychischen Erkrankungen ­ www.psychenet.de.

OBJECTIVES: Aim of our study was to investigate acceptance and use of the German e-mental health website - www.psychenet.de offering evidence-based health information, self-tests and patient decision aids concerning mental disorders and issues. METHODS: The website was evaluated by means of an online survey (acceptance) and automatically generated data by web analysis software (use). RESULTS: Overall, the website psychenet.de achieved high acceptance ratings among its users. In addition, the number of visitors to the website has increased steadily. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that psychenet.de offers mental health information that are more likely to be used by certain groups (e. g., highly educated persons). Future research should focus on different presentation modes of health information (e. g. text- vs. video-based) for hard to reach target groups in order to potentially increase reach of health information to a broader audience.

[Technology-Based Psychological Interventions (TBIs) for Bridging Waiting Periods and Aftercare for People with Depressive Disorders: The Current State of Research]. / Technologiebasierte psychologische Interventionen (TBIs) zur Überbrückung von Wartezeiten und zur Nachsorge bei Menschen mit depressiven Erkrankungen ­ der aktuelle Forschungsstand.

Our goal was to present current research on the effectiveness, acceptance and safety of technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) for bridging waiting periods (e. g., for outpatient psychotherapy) and aftercare of people with depressive disorders and to derive implications for future research. In this systematic review of 83 studies, the use of TBIs in people with diagnosed depression was analyzed. Among these, only a few studies were identified as those applying TBIs for bridging waiting periods (n=1) and aftercare (n=4). The narrative summary of results suggests the effectiveness of TBIs for aftercare. However, very few data are available on TBIs regarding their acceptance, safety and use for bridging waiting periods. The current evidence base is insufficient for recommending the use of TBIs for bridging waiting periods and for aftercare. Further randomized controlled trials capturing effectiveness, acceptance, safety, and the potential for implementation of TBIs under real-world care conditions are needed.

Evidence on Technology-Based Psychological Interventions in Diagnosed Depression: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) for the treatment of depression is rapidly growing and covers a broad scope of research. Despite extensive research in this field, guideline recommendations are still limited to the general effectiveness of TBIs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to structure evidence on TBIs by considering different application areas (eg, TBIs for acute treatment and their implementation in health care, such as stand-alone interventions) and treatment characteristics (eg, therapeutic rationale of TBIs) to provide a comprehensive evidence base and to identify research gaps in TBIs for diagnosed depression. Moreover, the reporting of negative events in the included studies is investigated in this review to enable subsequent safety assessment of the TBIs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials on adults diagnosed with unipolar depression receiving any kind of psychotherapeutic treatment, which was at least partly delivered by a technical medium, were eligible for inclusion in our preregistered systematic review. We searched for trials in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; until August 2020), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL; until the end of January 2018), clinical trial registers, and sources of gray literature (until the end of January 2019). Study selection and data extraction were conducted by 2 review authors independently. RESULTS: Database searches resulted in 15,546 records, of which 241 publications were included, representing 83 completed studies and 60 studies awaiting classification (ie, preregistered studies, study protocols). Almost all completed studies (78/83, 94%) addressed the acute treatment phase, being largely either implemented as stand-alone interventions (66/83, 80%) or blended treatment approaches (12/83, 14%). Studies on TBIs for aftercare (4/83, 5%) and for bridging waiting periods (1/83, 1%) were scarce. Most TBI study arms (n=107) were guided (59/107, 55.1%), delivered via the internet (80/107, 74.8%), and based on cognitive behavioral treatment approaches (88/107, 79.4%). Almost all studies (77/83, 93%) reported information on negative events, considering dropouts from treatment as a negative event. However, reports on negative events were heterogeneous and largely unsystematic. CONCLUSIONS: Research has given little attention to studies evaluating TBIs for aftercare and for bridging waiting periods in people with depression, even though TBIs are seen as highly promising in these application areas; thus, high quality studies are urgently needed. In addition, the variety of therapeutic rationales on TBIs has barely been represented by identified studies hindering the consideration of patient preferences when planning treatment. Finally, future studies should use specific guidelines to systematically assess and report negative events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028042.

Effectiveness and Acceptance of Technology-Based Psychological Interventions for the Acute Treatment of Unipolar Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) for the acute treatment of depression is rapidly growing. Despite extensive research in this field, there is a lack of research determining effectiveness and acceptance of TBIs considering different application formats in people with a formally diagnosed depressive disorder. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the review was to investigate the effectiveness and acceptance of TBIs in people with diagnosed depression with particular focus on application formats (stand-alone interventions, blended treatments, collaborative and/or stepped care interventions). METHODS: Studies investigating adults with diagnosed unipolar depressive disorders receiving any kind of psychotherapeutic treatment delivered (at least partly) by a technical medium and conducted as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. We searched CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; August 2020), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL (January 2018), clinical trial registers, and sources of grey literature (January 2019). Two independent authors decided about study inclusion and extracted data. We performed random effects meta-analyses to synthesize the data. RESULTS: Database searches resulted in 15,546 records of which 78 completed studies were included. TBIs delivered as stand-alone interventions showed positive effects on posttreatment depression severity when compared to treatment as usual (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.15, k=10; I²=86%), attention placebo (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.30; k=12; I²=66%), and waitlist controls (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.79; k=19; I²=73%). Superior long-term effects on depression severity were shown when TBIs were compared to treatment as usual (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.07; k=6; I²=48%) attention placebo (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.07; k=7; I²=21%) and waitlist controls (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.18; k=3; I²=79%). TBIs delivered as blended treatments (providing a TBI as an add-on to face-to-face treatment) yielded beneficial effects on posttreatment depression severity (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; k=8; I²=53%) compared to face-to-face treatments only. Additionally, TBIs delivered within collaborative care trials were more effective in reducing posttreatment (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.04; k=2; I²=0%) and long-term (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.07; k=2; I²=0%) depression severity than usual care. Dropout rates did not differ between the intervention and control groups in any comparison (all P≥.09). CONCLUSIONS: We found that TBIs are effective not only when delivered as stand-alone interventions but also when they are delivered as blended treatments or in collaborative care trials for people with diagnosed depression. Our results may be useful to inform routine care, since we focused specifically on different application formats, formally diagnosed patients, and the long-term effectiveness of TBIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028042.

Therapeutic Alliance in Technology-Based Interventions for the Treatment of Depression: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that technology-based interventions (TBIs) are effective for the treatment of depression. As TBIs are gaining acceptance, a question arises whether good therapeutic alliance, considered a key aspect of psychotherapy, can be established without or with minimal face-to-face contact or rather changes if blended concepts are applied. While therapeutic alliance has been studied extensively in the context of face-to-face therapy, only few studies have reviewed evidence on alliance ratings in TBIs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine therapeutic alliance in technology-based psychological interventions for the treatment of depression. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, clinical trial registers, and sources of grey literature for randomized controlled trials on TBIs in the treatment of adults with unipolar depression. All publications were selected according to prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of eight out of 98 studies (9.5%) included in the review on TBIs for depression considered therapeutic alliance as part of their evaluation. The available data covered eight different treatment conditions, including four stand-alone treatments (face-to-face psychotherapy, email, telephone, and internet program) and four combined treatments (face-to-face psychotherapy plus a smartphone app and an internet program combined with face-to-face psychotherapy, treatment as usual, or email/telephone). On average, patients rated the alliance positively across all groups. Importantly, no relevant group differences regarding therapeutic alliance sum scores were found in any of the studies. Five studies investigated the relationship between patients' alliance ratings and treatment outcome, revealing mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it is possible to establish a positive therapeutic alliance across a variety of different TBIs for depression, but this is based on a small number of studies. Future research needs to determine on what basis therapeutic alliance is formed in settings that do not allow for additional nonverbal cues, perhaps with adapted instruments to measure therapeutic alliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028042.

[Potentials and Challenges of E-Mental Health Interventions in Mental Health Care]. / Potenziale und Herausforderungen von E-Mental-Health-Interventionen in der Versorgung psychischer Störungen.

Mental disorders are common and impairing for both affected individuals and society. Despite the great burden of mental disorders and a comparably well-developed mental health care system in Germany, mental disorders are still treated insufficiently. Additionally, access barriers such as long waiting times for outpatient treatment impede utilization of mental health care services. E-mental health interventions are considered as promising options to reduce access barriers and to overcome gaps in the mental health care system. Such interventions can be delivered flexibly (i. e. independent of time and / or space), so that people living in rural and underserved areas, or people with mobility constraints (e. g. because of physical illness or impairment) can be reached adequately. However, the e-(mental) health sector is facing numerous challenges, as there is ambiguity regarding terminological, conceptual and evaluative aspects hindering the implementation process in routine care and affecting acceptance of e-mental health interventions for users and health care providers. Thus, this contribution describes and discusses potentials, challenges and needs for specification (e. g. terminologically) of e-mental health interventions in the context of mental health care.

Rationale and design of a systematic review: effectiveness and acceptance of technology-based psychological interventions in different clinical phases of depression management.

INTRODUCTION: Although many effective treatment options exist, depression is still undertreated indicating gaps in the healthcare system. The complementary provision of mental healthcare through technologies (eg, computer, smartphone) has the potential to fill treatment gaps and to overcome access barriers to mental healthcare. Until now, no systematic review integrates the evidence on different technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) concerning their effectiveness and acceptance in different clinical phases of depression management (bridging waiting periods, acute treatment and aftercare). The aim of this project is to structure evidence on TBIs regarding different phases of depression management, and to determine effectiveness and acceptance for each clinical phase considering both active (eg, face-to-face treatment) and inactive (eg, waitlist) controls as comparators. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include studies on adults with a formal diagnosis of unipolar depression. Treatments delivered by technologies based on scientific psychological theories will be considered as experimental interventions. The primary effectiveness outcome will be depressive symptoms at study endpoint measured by symptom severity rating scales, and the primary acceptance outcome will be dropping out of the study due to any reason. We will consider only randomised controlled trials, which will be identified by key database searches (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL) complemented through searches in clinical trial registries (eg, clinicaltrials.gov) and grey literature searches (eg, Open Grey). Two review authors will independently conduct study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies (using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias). Meta-analyses applying random-effect models as well as subgroup, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study, as we conduct research on secondary data. We will disseminate results via peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations on conferences and via plain language summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016050413; Pre-results.