The effectiveness of self-guided interventions in adults with depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite promising scalability and accessibility, evidence on the efficacy of self-guided interventions for adult depression is inconclusive. This study investigated their effectiveness and acceptability, considering diverse delivery formats and support levels. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library until 1st January 2024. Included were randomised controlled trials comparing self-guided interventions with a control condition for adult depression. Two independent researchers extracted data. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effects models, with post-intervention depressive severity compared with control conditions as the primary outcome. Study validity was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. This study was pre-registered with OSF (https://osf.io/rd43v). FINDINGS: We identified 92 studies (111 interventions vs. control comparisons) with 16,706 participants (mean age: 18.78-74.41 years). Compared to controls, self-guided interventions were moderately effective at post-assessment (g = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.45-0.61; I2 = 79.17%) and six to twelve months post-randomisation follow-up (g = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.16-0.48; I2 = 79.19%). Trials with initial human screening (g = 0.59) and interventions delivered in computer programs (g = 1.04) had the significantly largest effect sizes. No differences in treatment effects were observed across support levels, therapy types, commercial availability, or the presence of online discussion forums. Self-guided interventions were less acceptable than control conditions (RR = 0.92, p < 0.001). Most studies showed a moderate to high risk of bias (n = 80). INTERPRETATION: Existing trials on self-guided interventions are at high risk of bias, potentially overestimating treatment effects. Despite lower acceptability compared to controls, self-guided interventions are moderately effective in treating adult depression, regardless of support levels and online discussion features. FUNDING: None.

Psychotherapy for adult depression in low- and middle-income countries: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses on psychotherapy for adult depression have found a larger treatment effect in non-Western trials compared to Western trials (i.e. North America, Europe, and Australia). However, factors contributing to this difference remain unclear. This study investigated different study characteristics between Western and non-Western trials and examined their association with effect size estimates. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (01-09-2022). We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared psychotherapy with a control condition. The validity of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1). Effect sizes were pooled using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also conducted. We identified 405 eligible trials, among which 105 trials (117 comparisons, 16 304 participants) were from non-Western countries. We confirmed that non-Western trials had a larger treatment effect (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.31) than Western trials (g = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52-0.62). Trials from non-Western countries also had more usual care controls, higher risk of bias, larger sample sizes, lower mean ages, younger adults, more group-based interventions, and other recruitment methods (e.g. systematic screening; p < 0.05). The larger effect sizes found in non-Western trials were related to the presence of wait-list controls, high risk of bias, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and clinician-diagnosed depression (p < 0.05). The larger treatment effects observed in non-Western trials may result from the high heterogeneous study design and relatively low validity. Further research on long-term effects, adolescent groups, and individual-level data are still needed.

Meta-Regression on the Heterogenous Factors Contributing to the Prevalence of Mental Health Symptoms During the COVID-19 Crisis Among Healthcare Workers.

Objective: This paper used meta-regression to analyze the heterogenous factors contributing to the prevalence rate of mental health symptoms of the general and frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) in China under the COVID-19 crisis. Method: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Medrxiv and pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the prevalence rates, and ran meta-regression to tease out the key sources of the heterogeneity. Results: The meta-regression results uncovered several predictors of the heterogeneity in prevalence rates among published studies, including severity (e.g., above severe vs. above moderate, p < 0.01; above moderate vs. above mild, p < 0.01), type of mental symptoms (PTSD vs. anxiety, p = 0.04), population (frontline vs. general HCWs, p < 0.01), sampling location (Wuhan vs. Non-Wuhan, p = 0.04), and study quality (p = 0.04). Conclusion: The meta-regression findings provide evidence on the factors contributing to the prevalence rate of mental health symptoms of the general and frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) to guide future research and evidence-based medicine in several specific directions. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=220592, identifier: CRD42020220592.