Cited by 336Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Effectiveness of digital psychological interventions for mental health problems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Fu, Zhongfang, Burger, Huibert, Arjadi, Retha, Bockting, Claudi L H·2020·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Background The 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. Methods In 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. Findings We 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 ( I 2 =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. Interpretation Digital 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. Funding None. Translations For the Persian, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Bahasa, Turkish, Romanian, Spanish and Thai translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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/s2215-0366(20)30256-x

Cites

49 of 49 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [22]WHO WHO guideline, recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening 2019 World Health Organization Geneva 31162915
  2. [26]Deeks JJ Higgins JPT Altman DG Chapter 10: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10 2019

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fu, Z., Burger, H., Arjadi, R., & Bockting, C. L. H.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia (ID)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Bockting, Claudi L H
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
7
Issue
10
Pages
851-864
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3082767440
Cited by
336
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 4
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2021-11-01)
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
digital psychological interventions, mental illness, low- and middle-income countries, depression, substance abuse, young adults, usual care, cognitive therapy, behavior therapy, intervention effectiveness, usual care comparison, publication bias, quality of evidence, study heterogeneity, GRADE quality assessment, effect size, clinical interview, follow-up duration
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Developing Countries, Humans, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Substance-Related Disorders

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