Effect of Engagement With Digital Interventions on Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gan DZQ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8599127 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11344322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital mental health interventions (DMHIs), which deliver mental health support via technologies such as mobile apps, can increase access to mental health support, and many studies have demonstrated their effectiveness in improving symptoms. However, user engagement varies, with regard to a user's uptake and sustained interactions with these interventions.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify common barriers and facilitators that influence user engagement with DMHIs.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the SCOPUS, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Empirical studies that report qualitative and/or quantitative data were included.ResultsA total of 208 articles met the inclusion criteria. The included articles used a variety of methodologies, including interviews, surveys, focus groups, workshops, field studies, and analysis of user reviews. Factors extracted for coding were related to the end user, the program or content offered by the intervention, and the technology and implementation environment. Common barriers included severe mental health issues that hampered engagement, technical issues, and a lack of personalization. Common facilitators were social connectedness facilitated by the intervention, increased insight into health, and a feeling of being in control of one's own health.ConclusionsAlthough previous research suggests that DMHIs can be useful in supporting mental health, contextual factors are important determinants of whether users actually engage with these interventions. The factors identified in this review can provide guidance when evaluating DMHIs to help explain and understand user engagement and can inform the design and development of new digital interventions.
| S-EPMC8074985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile many digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have been found to be efficacious, patient engagement with DMHIs has increasingly emerged as a concern for implementation in real-world clinical settings. To address engagement, we must first understand what standard engagement levels are in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how these compare with other treatments.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to examine the state of reporting on intervention engagement in RCTs of mobile app-based interventions intended to treat symptoms of depression. We sought to identify what engagement metrics are and are not routinely reported as well as what the metrics that are reported reflect about standard engagement levels.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of 7 databases to identify studies meeting our eligibility criteria, namely, RCTs that evaluated use of a mobile app-based intervention in adults, for which depressive symptoms were a primary outcome of interest. We then extracted 2 kinds of information from each article: intervention details and indices of DMHI engagement. A 5-element framework of minimum necessary DMHI engagement reporting was derived by our team and guided our data extraction. This framework included (1) recommended app use as communicated to participants at enrollment and, when reported, app adherence criteria; (2) rate of intervention uptake among those assigned to the intervention; (3) level of app use metrics reported, specifically number of uses and time spent using the app; (4) duration of app use metrics (ie, weekly use patterns); and (5) number of intervention completers.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 2083 unique records. Of these, 22 studies were eligible for inclusion. Only 64% (14/22) of studies included in this review specified rate of intervention uptake. Level of use metrics was only reported in 59% (13/22) of the studies reviewed. Approximately one-quarter of the studies (5/22, 23%) reported duration of use metrics. Only half (11/22, 50%) of the studies reported the number of participants who completed the app-based components of the intervention as intended or other metrics related to completion. Findings in those studies reporting metrics related to intervention completion indicated that between 14.4% and 93.0% of participants randomized to a DMHI condition completed the intervention as intended or according to a specified adherence criteria.ConclusionsFindings suggest that engagement was underreported and widely varied. It was not uncommon to see completion rates at or below 50% (11/22) of those participants randomized to a treatment condition or to simply see completion rates not reported at all. This variability in reporting suggests a failure to establish sufficient reporting standards and limits the conclusions that can be drawn about level of engagement with DMHIs. Based on these findings, the 5-element framework applied in this review may be useful as a minimum necessary standard for DMHI engagement reporting.
| S-EPMC9617183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has shifted mental health care delivery to digital platforms, videoconferencing, and other mobile communications. However, existing reviews of digital health interventions are narrow in scope and focus on a limited number of mental health conditions.ObjectiveTo address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive systematic meta-review of the literature to assess the state of digital health interventions for the treatment of mental health conditions.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE for secondary literature published between 2010 and 2021 on the use, efficacy, and appropriateness of digital health interventions for the delivery of mental health care.ResultsOf the 3022 records identified, 466 proceeded to full-text review and 304 met the criteria for inclusion in this study. A majority (52%) of research involved the treatment of substance use disorders, 29% focused on mood, anxiety, and traumatic stress disorders, and >5% for each remaining mental health conditions. Synchronous and asynchronous communication, computerized therapy, and cognitive training appear to be effective but require further examination in understudied mental health conditions. Similarly, virtual reality, mobile apps, social media platforms, and web-based forums are novel technologies that have the potential to improve mental health but require higher quality evidence.ConclusionsDigital health interventions offer promise in the treatment of mental health conditions. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital health interventions provide a safer alternative to face-to-face treatment. However, further research on the applications of digital interventions in understudied mental health conditions is needed. Additionally, evidence is needed on the effectiveness and appropriateness of digital health tools for patients who are marginalized and may lack access to digital health interventions.
| S-EPMC9109782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital interventions offer a solution to address the high demand for mental health promotion, especially when facing physical contact restrictions or lacking accessibility. Engagement with digital interventions is critical for their effectiveness; however, retaining users' engagement throughout the intervention is challenging. It remains unclear what strategies facilitate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion.ObjectiveOur aim is to conduct a scoping review to investigate user engagement strategies and methods to evaluate engagement with digital interventions that target mental health promotion in adults.MethodsThis scoping review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews. The search was conducted in 7 electronic databases from inception to April 2020. The inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: adult (aged ≥18 years) users of digital interventions for mental health promotion from the general population; any digital intervention for mental health promotion; and user engagement strategies described in the intervention design. We extracted the following data items: study characteristics, digital intervention (type and engagement strategy), evaluation of engagement strategy (method and result specifying whether the strategy was effective at facilitating engagement), and features of engagement (extent of use and subjective experience of users).ResultsA total of 2766 studies were identified, of which 16 (0.58%) met the inclusion criteria. The 16 studies included randomized controlled trials (6/16, 37%), studies analyzing process data (5/16, 31%), observational studies (3/16, 19%), and qualitative studies (2/16, 13%). The digital interventions for mental health promotion were either web based (12/16, 75%) or mobile app based (4/16, 25%). The engagement strategies included personalized feedback about intervention content or users' mental health status; guidance regarding content and progress through e-coaching; social forums, and interactivity with peers; content gamification; reminders; and flexibility and ease of use. These engagement strategies were deemed effective based on qualitative user feedback or responses on questionnaires or tools (4/16, 25%), usability data (5/16, 31%), or both (7/16, 44%). Most studies identified personalized support in the form of e-coaching, peer support through a social platform, personalized feedback, or joint videoconference sessions as an engaging feature.ConclusionsPersonalized support during the intervention, access to social support, and personalized feedback seem to promote engagement with digital interventions for mental health promotion. These findings need to be interpreted with caution because the included studies were heterogeneous, had small sample sizes, and typically did not address engagement as the primary outcome. Despite the importance of user engagement for the effectiveness of digital interventions, this field has not yet received much attention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of different strategies required to facilitate user engagement in digital interventions for mental health promotion.
| S-EPMC8726056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital mental health interventions are increasingly prevalent in the current context of rapidly evolving technology, and research indicates that they yield effectiveness outcomes comparable to in-person treatment. Integrating professionals (ie, psychologists and physicians) into digital mental health interventions has become common, and the inclusion of guidance within programs can increase adherence to interventions. However, employing professionals to enhance mental health programs may undermine the scalability of digital interventions. Therefore, delegating guidance tasks to paraprofessionals (peer supporters, technicians, lay counsellors, or other nonclinicians) can help reduce costs and increase accessibility.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of nonclinician-guided digital mental health interventions.MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2020 examining digital mental health interventions. Three journals that focus on digital intervention were hand searched; gray literature was searched using ProQuest and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL). Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2. Data were collected on effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes, and meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and adherence outcomes. Nonclinician-guided interventions were compared with treatment as usual, clinician-guided interventions, and unguided interventions.ResultsThirteen studies qualified for inclusion. Nonclinician-guided interventions yielded higher posttreatment effectiveness outcomes when compared to conditions involving control programs (eg, online psychoeducation and monitored attention control) or wait-list controls (k=7, Hedges g=-0.73; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.38). There were also significant differences between nonclinician-guided interventions and unguided interventions (k=6, Hedges g=-0.17; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.11). In addition, nonclinician-guided interventions did not differ in effectiveness from clinician-guided interventions (k=3, Hedges g=0.08; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17). These results suggest that guided digital mental health interventions are helpful to improve mental health outcomes regardless of the qualifications of the individual performing the intervention, and that the presence of a nonclinician guide improves effectiveness outcomes compared to having no guide. Nonclinician-guided interventions did not yield significantly different adherence outcomes when compared with unguided interventions (k=3, odds ratio 1.58; 95% CI 0.51 to 4.92), although a general trend of improved adherence was observed within nonclinician-guided interventions.ConclusionsIntegrating paraprofessionals and nonclinicians appears to improve the outcomes of digital mental health interventions, and may also enhance adherence outcomes (though this trend was nonsignificant). Further research should focus on the specific types of tasks these paraprofessionals can successfully provide (ie, psychosocial support, therapeutic alliance, and technical augmentation) and their associated outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020191226; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=191226.
| S-EPMC9244656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.
| S-EPMC8024379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) in mental healthcare has received increased attention as a process to reinforce person-centered care. With the rapid development of digital health technology, researchers investigate how digital interventions may be utilized to support SDM. Despite the promise of digital interventions to support SDM, the effect of these in mental healthcare has not been evaluated before. Thus, this paper aims to assess the effect of SDM interventions complimented by digital technology in mental healthcare. Objective: The objective of this review was to systematically examine the effectiveness of digital SDM interventions on patient outcomes as investigated in randomized trials. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on digital SDM interventions for people with a mental health condition. We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search strategy included terms relating to SDM, digital systems, mental health conditions, and study type. The primary outcome was patient activation or indices of the same (e.g., empowerment and self-efficacy), adherence to treatment, hospital admissions, severity of symptoms, and level of functioning. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction, decisional conflict, working alliance, usage, and adherence of medicine; and adverse events were defined as harms or side effects. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria with outcome data from 2,400 participants. Digital SDM interventions had a moderate positive effect as compared with a control condition on patient activation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.56, CI: 0.10, 1.01, p = 0.02], a small effect on general symptoms (SMD = -0.17, CI: -0.31, -0.03, p = 0.02), and working alliance (SMD = 0.21, CI: 0.02, 0.41, p = 0.03) and for improving decisional conflict (SMD = -0.37, CI: -0.70, -0.05, p = 0.02). No effect was found on self-efficacy, other types of mental health symptoms, adverse events, or patient satisfaction. A total of 39 outcomes were narratively synthesized with results either favoring the intervention group or showing no significant differences between groups. Studies were generally assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. Conclusions: Digital interventions to support SDM may be a promising tool in mental healthcare; but with the limited quality of research, we have little confidence in the estimates of effect. More quality research is needed to further assess the effectiveness of digital means to support SDM but also to determine which digital intervention features are most effective to support SDM. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020148132.
| S-EPMC8450495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The availability of digital tools aiming to promote adolescent mental health is rapidly increasing. However, the field lacks an up-to-date and focused review of current evidence. This study thus looked into the characteristics and efficacy of digital, evidence-based mental health programs for youth (11-18 years). The selection procedure followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and resulted in 27 eligible studies. The high heterogeneity of the results calls for careful interpretation. Nevertheless, small, but promising, effects of digital tools were found with respect to promoting well-being, relieving anxiety, and enhancing protective factors. Some important factors influencing overall efficacy include the given setting, the level of guidance and support, and the adherence to the intervention.
| S-EPMC9907880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) are efficacious for several mental disorders in youth; however, integrated, evidence-based knowledge about the mechanisms of change in these interventions is lacking.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to comprehensively evaluate studies on mediators and mechanisms of change in different DHIs for common mental disorders in children and adolescents.MethodsA systematic literature search of the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO was conducted, complemented by backward and forward searches. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and rated the methodological quality of eligible studies (ie, risk of bias and 8 quality criteria for process research).ResultsA total of 25 studies that have evaluated 39 potential mediators were included in this review. Cognitive mediators were the largest group of examined intervening variables, followed by a broad range of emotional and affective, interpersonal, parenting behavior, and other mediators. The mediator categories with the highest percentages of significant intervening variables were the groups of affective mediators (4/4, 100%) and combined cognitive mediators (13/19, 68%). Although more than three-quarters of the eligible studies met 5 or more quality criteria, causal conclusions have been widely precluded.ConclusionsThe findings of this review might guide the empirically informed advancement of DHIs, contributing to improved intervention outcomes, and the discussion of methodological recommendations for process research might facilitate mediation studies with more pertinent designs, allowing for conclusions with higher causal certainty in the future.
| S-EPMC8665396 | biostudies-literature