Dataset Information

The Effects of Nonclinician Guidance on Effectiveness and Process Outcomes in Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital 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.

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of nonclinician-guided digital mental health interventions.

Methods

Four 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.

Results

Thirteen 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.

Conclusions

Integrating 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 registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020191226; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=191226.

SUBMITTER: Leung C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9244656 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of digital psychological interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the available evidence for digital psychological interventions in reducing mental health problems in LMICs.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published in English from database inception to March 9, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials investigating digital psychological interventions in individuals with mental health problems in LMICs. We extracted data on demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, details of the intervention, including the setting, digital delivery method, control group conditions, number of sessions, therapeutic orientation (eg, cognitive therapy or behaviour therapy), presence or absence of guidance, and length of follow-up, and statistical information to calculate effect sizes. If a study reported insufficient data to calculate effect sizes, the corresponding authors were contacted to provide data that could be aggregated. We did random-effects meta-analyses, and calculated the standardised mean difference in scores of digital psychological interventions versus control conditions (Hedges'g). Quality of evidence was assessed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was post-intervention mental health problems, as measured by self-reporting instruments or clinical interviews. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019137755.FindingsWe identified 22 eligible studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies involved a total of 4104 participants (2351 who received a digital psychological intervention and 1753 who were in the control group), and mainly focused on young adults (mean age of the study population was 20-35 years) with depression or substance misuse. The results showed that digital psychological interventions are moderately effective when compared with control interventions (Hedges'g 0·60 [95% CI 0·45-0·75]; Hedges'g with treatment as usual subgroup for comparison 0·54 [0·35-0·73]). Heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=74% [95% CI 60-83]). There was no evidence of publication bias, and the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria was generally high.InterpretationDigital psychological interventions, which have been mostly studied in individuals with depression and substance misuse, are superior to control conditions, including usual care, and are moderately effective in LMICs. However, the considerable heterogeneity observed in our analysis highlights the need for more studies to be done, with standardised implementation of digital psychological intervention programmes to improve their reproducibility and efficiency. Digital psychological interventions should be considered for regions where usual care for mental health problems is minimal or absent.FundingNone.TranslationsFor the Persian, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Bahasa, Turkish, Romanian, Spanish and Thai translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:Many organisations promote eHealth applications as a feasible, low-cost method of addressing mental ill-health and stress amongst their employees. However, there are good reasons why the efficacy identified in clinical or other samples may not generalize to employees, and many Apps are being developed specifically for this group. The aim of this paper is to conduct the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the evidence for the effectiveness and examine the relative efficacy of different types of eHealth interventions for employees.Systematic searches were conducted for relevant articles published from 1975 until November 17, 2016, of trials of eHealth mental health interventions (App or web-based) focused on the mental health of employees. The quality and bias of all identified studies was assessed. We extracted means and standard deviations from published reports, comparing the difference in effect sizes (Hedge's g) in standardized mental health outcomes. We meta-analysed these using a random effects model, stratified by length of follow up, intervention type, and whether the intervention was universal (unselected) or targeted to selected groups e.g. "stressed".23 controlled trials of eHealth interventions were identified which overall suggested a small positive effect at both post intervention (g = 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35) and follow up (g = 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42). There were differential short term effects seen between the intervention types whereby Mindfulness based interventions (g = 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.85, n = 6) showed larger effects than the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) based (g = 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29, n = 11) and Stress Management based (g = 0.17, 95%CI -0.01 to 0.34, n = 6) interventions. The Stress Management interventions however differed by whether delivered to universal or targeted groups with a moderately large effect size at both post-intervention (g = 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85) and follow-up (g = 0.69, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.33) in targeted groups, but no effect in unselected groups.There is reasonable evidence that eHealth interventions delivered to employees may reduce mental health and stress symptoms post intervention and still have a benefit, although reduced at follow-up. Despite the enthusiasm in the corporate world for such approaches, employers and other organisations should be aware not all such interventions are equal, many lack evidence, and achieving the best outcomes depends upon providing the right type of intervention to the correct population.

Project description:BackgroundMental health conditions are considered the leading cause of disability, sickness absence, and long-term work incapacity. eHealth interventions provide employees with access to psychological assistance. There has been widespread implementation and provision of eHealth interventions in the workplace as an inexpensive and anonymous way of addressing common mental disorders.ObjectiveThis updated review aimed to synthesize the literature on the efficacy of eHealth interventions for anxiety, depression, and stress outcomes in employee samples in organizational settings and evaluate whether their effectiveness has improved over time.MethodsSystematic searches of relevant articles published from 2004 to July 2020 of eHealth intervention trials (app- or web-based) focusing on the mental health of employees were conducted. The quality and bias of all studies were assessed. We extracted means and SDs from publications by comparing the differences in effect sizes (Hedge g) in standardized mental health outcomes. We meta-analyzed these data using a random-effects model.ResultsWe identified a tripling of the body of evidence, with 75 trials available for meta-analysis from a combined sample of 14,747 articles. eHealth interventions showed small positive effects for anxiety (Hedges g=0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.39; P<.001), depression (Hedges g=0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.34; P<.001), and stress (Hedges g=0.25, 95% CI 0.17-0.34; P<.001) in employees' after intervention, with similar effects seen at the medium-term follow-up. However, there was evidence of no increase in the effectiveness of these interventions over the past decade.ConclusionsThis review and meta-analysis confirmed that eHealth interventions have a small positive impact on reducing mental health symptoms in employees. Disappointingly, we found no evidence that, despite the advances in technology and the enormous resources in time, research, and finance devoted to this area for over a decade, better interventions are being produced. Hopefully, these small effect sizes do not represent optimum outcomes in organizational settings.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020185859; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185859.

Project description:BackgroundRecent years have highlighted an increasing need to promote mental well-being in the general population. This has led to a rapidly growing market for fully automated digital mental well-being tools. Although many individuals have started using these tools in their daily lives, evidence on the overall effectiveness of digital mental well-being tools is currently lacking.ObjectiveThis study aims to review the evidence on the effectiveness of fully automated digital interventions in promoting mental well-being in the general population.MethodsFollowing the preregistration of the systematic review protocol on PROSPERO, searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, Scopus, and ACM Digital (initial searches in February 2022; updated in October 2022). Studies were included if they contained a general population sample and a fully automated digital intervention that exclusively used psychological mental well-being promotion activities. Two reviewers, blinded to each other's decisions, conducted data selection, extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies. Narrative synthesis and a random-effects model of per-protocol data were adopted.ResultsWe included 19 studies that involved 7243 participants. These studies included 24 fully automated digital mental well-being interventions, of which 15 (63%) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with no intervention, there was a significant small effect of fully automated digital mental well-being interventions on mental well-being in the general population (standardized mean difference 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.33; P=.02). Specifically, mindfulness-, acceptance-, commitment-, and compassion-based interventions significantly promoted mental well-being in the general population (P=.006); insufficient evidence was available for positive psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions; and contraindications were found for integrative approaches. Overall, there was substantial heterogeneity, which could be partially explained by the intervention duration, comparator, and study outcomes. The risk of bias was high, and confidence in the quality of the evidence was very low (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), primarily because of the high rates of study dropout (average 37%; range 0%-85%) and suboptimal intervention adherence (average 40%).ConclusionsThis study provides a novel contribution to knowledge regarding the effectiveness, strengths, and weaknesses of fully automated digital mental well-being interventions in the general population. Future research and practice should consider these findings when developing fully automated digital mental well-being tools. In addition, research should aim to investigate positive psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy-based tools as well as develop further strategies to improve adherence and reduce dropout in fully automated digital mental well-being interventions. Finally, it should aim to understand when and for whom these interventions are particularly beneficial.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022310702; https://tinyurl.com/yc7tcwy7.