Cited by 273Digital Mental Health InterventionsSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health via Writing

Suicide prevention using self-guided digital interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Torok, Michelle, Han, Jin, Baker, Simon, Werner-Seidler, Aliza, Wong, Iana, Larsen, Mark E, Christensen, Helen·2020·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

Background Digital interventions that deliver psychological self-help provide the opportunity to reach individuals at risk of suicide who do not access traditional health services. Our primary objective was to test whether direct (targeting suicidality) and indirect (targeting depression) digital interventions are effective in reducing suicidal ideation and behaviours, and our secondary analyses assessed whether direct interventions were more effective than indirect interventions. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched online databases MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials published between database inception to May 21, 2019. Superiority randomised controlled trials of self-guided digital interventions (app or web based, which delivered theory-based therapeutic content) were included if they reported suicidal ideation, suicidal plans, or suicide attempts as an outcome. Non-inferiority randomised controlled trials were excluded to ensure comparability of the effect. Data were extracted from published reports, and intention-to-treat data were used if available. The primary outcome was the difference in mean scores of validated suicidal ideation measures (Hedges' g ) with the associated 95% CI for the analysis of digital intervention effectiveness on suicidal ideation. We also present funnel plots of the primary outcome measure (suicidal ideation) for direct and indirect interventions to assess for publication bias. We calculated I 2 (with I 2 CI) values to test heterogeneity. We used random-effects modelling for the meta-analyses to assess the primary and secondary outcomes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018102084. Findings The literature search yielded 739 articles (including manual searching) for suicidality and 8842 articles for depression. After screening, 14 papers reporting on 16 studies were included in the narrative review and meta-analysis. The 16 studies (ten on direct interventions and six on indirect interventions) provided baseline data for 4398 participants. The primary outcome of overall post-intervention effect for suicidal ideation was small but significant immediately following the active intervention phase (Hedges' g −0·18, 95% CI −0·27 to −0·10, p<0·0001; I 2 =0%, I 2 CI 0·0–47·9). The secondary objective, comparing direct and indirect interventions, showed that direct interventions (targeting suicidality) significantly reduced suicidal ideation at post-intervention ( g −0·23, 95% CI −0·35 to −0·11, p<0·0001; I 2 =17·6%, I 2 CI 0·0–58·6), but indirect interventions (targeting depression) failed to reach significance ( g −0·12, 95% CI −0·25 to 0·01, p=0·071; I 2 =0%, I 2 CI 0·0–30·7). Interpretation Self-guided digital interventions directly targeting suicidal ideation are effective immediately post-intervention. Indirect interventions were not significant for reducing suicidal ideation. Our findings suggest that digital interventions should be promoted and disseminated widely, especially where there is a lack of, or minimal access to, health services. Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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/s2589-7500(19)30199-2

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Meta-analyses focusing on Internet-delivered prevention reported small significant effects on subclinical symptoms, generally smaller or insignificant for adolescents compared to adults.

    “Meta-analyses with a specific focus on Internet-delivered prevention reported small significant effects on subclinical symptoms [45, 61–63], which were generally smaller or even insignificant for adolescents compared to adults [62].”

    From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [63]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports small, significant effects of self-guided digital interventions on suicidal ideation immediately after intervention, supporting the first clause for that specific outcome. The Data analysis section (page unavailable) says an adolescent-versus-adult subgroup comparison was planned, but the passages found do not report smaller or insignificant effects for adolescents. The paper also does not establish the broader claim about subclinical symptoms generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is emerging evidence that adults readily access and benefit from suicide prevention interventions delivered via smartphone-based apps.

    “There is emerging evidence that adults readily access and benefit from suicide prevention interventions delivered via smartphone-based apps [25].”

    From A mobile health intervention (LifeBuoy App) to help young people manage suicidal thoughts: protocol for a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Results and Discussion support an emerging benefit: the review includes app-based trials with adults and reports a small reduction in suicidal ideation across the digital interventions studied. But that pooled finding also includes web-based programmes, and the paper does not establish that adults readily access apps; the Discussion identifies engagement as a major barrier. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Meta-analyses have shown that interventions directly targeting suicidal behaviors can reduce ideation in the short-term, whereas broader mental health interventions are unable to.

    “This need for development and testing of purpose designed treatments is because meta-analyses have shown that interventions directly targeting suicidal behaviors can reduce ideation in the short-term, whereas broader mental health interventions are unable to [14,20].”

    From The effect of a therapeutic smartphone application on suicidal ideation in young adults: Findings from a randomized controlled trial in Australia. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Abstract reports that self-guided digital interventions directly targeting suicidality significantly reduced suicidal ideation immediately after treatment, while interventions targeting depression did not reach statistical significance. The claim broadens the comparison from depression-targeted interventions to all broader mental health interventions and treats a nonsignificant result as proof that they are unable to reduce ideation. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Adults can readily access and benefit from technology-enabled solutions that directly target suicidal ideation and/or behaviors.

    “Adults can readily access and benefit from technology-enabled solutions that directly target suicidal ideation and/or behaviors [14,15]; however, the evidence for this is largely derived from trials of web-based programs rather than smartphone interventions.”

    From The effect of a therapeutic smartphone application on suicidal ideation in young adults: Findings from a randomized controlled trial in Australia. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that directly targeted self-guided digital interventions produced a small, significant reduction in suicidal ideation immediately after treatment. But the paper recommends making these interventions available more widely rather than establishing that adults can already readily access them; it also reports no significant reduction in suicidal behaviours. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A sample size of 189 participants per intervention group is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.30 for the primary outcome at postintervention with at least 80% power and an alpha criterion of 0.05.

    “Power analyses determined that a sample size of 189 participants per intervention group would be sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.30 [14] for our primary outcome at postintervention with at least 80% power and an α criterion of 0.05.”

    From The effect of a therapeutic smartphone application on suicidal ideation in young adults: Findings from a randomized controlled trial in Australia. (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The citation is attached to the assumed effect size of 0.30, not to the citing authors’ power calculation. The Other non-CBT interventions section reports an imputed post-intervention effect estimate of −0.31 for direct interventions, close to 0.30 in magnitude. That is a conditional estimate, however; the paper reports an overall post-intervention effect of −0.18, so it does not establish 0.30 as the general effect size for the citing study’s primary outcome. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. Gotlib I, Hammen C, eds. Handbook of depression, 3rd edn New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Torok, M., Han, J., Baker, S., Werner-Seidler, A., Wong, I., Larsen, M. E., & Christensen, H.
Affiliations
Black Dog Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Torok, Michelle
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
e25-e36
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991439719
Cited by
273
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
suicide prevention, suicidal ideation, depression, mental health apps, online intervention, suicide attempts, suicide planning, psychological self-help, digital mental health
MeSH terms
Digital Technology, Suicide Prevention, Humans, Self Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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