Cited by 269Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Computerised therapies for anxiety and depression in children and young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Pennant, Mary E., Loucas, Christina E., Whittington, Craig, Creswell, Cathy, Fonagy, Peter, Fuggle, Peter, Kelvin, Raphael, Naqvi, Sabrina +2 more·2015·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

One quarter of children and young people (CYP) experience anxiety and/or depression before adulthood, but treatment is sometimes unavailable or inadequate. Self-help interventions may have a role in augmenting treatment and this work aimed to systematically review the evidence for computerised anxiety and depression interventions in CYP aged 5-25 years old. Databases were searched for randomised controlled trials and 27 studies were identified. For young people (12-25 years) with risk of diagnosed anxiety disorders or depression, computerised CBT (cCBT) had positive effects for symptoms of anxiety (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.09, k = 6, N = 220) and depression (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.11, k = 7, N = 279). In a general population study of young people, there were small positive effects for anxiety (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.03; N = 1273) and depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.03; N = 1280). There was uncertainty around the effectiveness of cCBT in children (5-11 years). Evidence for other computerised interventions was sparse and inconclusive. Computerised CBT has potential for treating and preventing anxiety and depression in clinical and general populations of young people. Further program development and research is required to extend its use and establish its benefit in children.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2015.01.009

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Computerized CBT programs such as MoodGym, SPARX, and 'Think, Feel, Do' generally have small but positive effects on mental health.

    “Furthermore, computerized CBT, such as MoodGym, SPARX, and “Think, Feel, Do” generally have small but positive effects on mental health.96 , 97”

    From Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19 (2020) · cites this paper as [96]

    The Study characteristics cCBT section identifies MoodGym, SPARX, and Think Feel Do as programs reviewed. The Depression and Anxiety sections report small improvements for young people in general-population studies, but also report larger or uncertain effects in other groups. The claim overgeneralizes the size of the effect and omits the review’s restriction to children and young people; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reviews have tended to conclude that effects are better if there is some therapist input and if parents are involved, especially for younger children.

    “Importantly, reviews have tended to conclude that effects are better if there is some therapist input97 , 101 and if parents are involved especially for younger children.96 , 97”

    From Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19 (2020) · cites this paper as [96]

    In “Moderators of effectiveness” (page unavailable), the review says therapist input may be important and parental input may be valuable for children. But its therapist-input subgroup analysis found no significant difference, and it says evidence for computerised parent-focused treatments is limited. The cited review therefore does not establish that either form of input produces better effects. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The efficacy of DHIPSY for some common mental disorders in children and adolescents has been established using meta-analyses.

    “The efficacy of DHIPSY for some common mental disorders in children and adolescents has been established using meta-analyses [12,16-19].”
  • In the past 5 years, a number of literature reviews have highlighted an increase in research and development activities for eMental healthcare technologies for children and adolescents.

    “In the past 5 years, a number of literature reviews have highlighted the increase in research and development activities for eMental healthcare technologies for children and adolescents [18-22].”
  • DMH tools do not remotely approximate the level of attractiveness and interactivity to which young digital natives have grown accustomed.

    “Most importantly, DMH tools do not remotely approximate the level of attractiveness and interactivity to which young “digital natives” have grown accustomed [17,32,43].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Higgins, J., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. In The Cochrane Collaboration (Ed.).
  2. NCCMH. (2014). Systematic review of e-therapies for children and young people with mental health problems. From https://www.minded.org.uk/course/view.php?id=122.
  3. The Cochrane Collaboration. (2012). Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pennant, M. E., Loucas, C. E., Whittington, C., Creswell, C., Fonagy, P., Fuggle, P., Kelvin, R., Naqvi, S., Stockton, S., & Kendall, T.
Affiliations
  • Royal College of Psychiatrists (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Anna Freud Centre (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Pennant, Mary E.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
67
Pages
1-18
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985615249
Cited by
269
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 7
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, childhood anxiety, adolescent depression, children and young people, self-help intervention, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, prevention of mental disorders
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Child, Child, Preschool, Computers, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Young Adult, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review