Cited by 170Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Two decades of digital interventions for anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness

Open access
Pauley, Darin, Cuijpers, Pim, Papola, Davide, Miguel, Clara, Karyotaki, Eirini·2021·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Abstract Background Digital interventions for anxiety disorders are a promising solution to address barriers to evidence-based treatment access. Precise and powerful estimates of digital intervention effectiveness for anxiety disorders are necessary for further adoption in practice. The present systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of digital interventions across all anxiety disorders and specific to each disorder v. wait-list and care-as-usual controls. Methods A systematic search of bibliographic databases identified 15 030 abstracts from inception to 1 January 2020. Forty-seven randomized controlled trials (53 comparisons; 4958 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted by an anxiety disorder, risk of bias, treatment support, recruitment, location and treatment adherence. Results A large, pooled effect size of g = 0.80 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.68–0.93] was found in favor of digital interventions. Moderate to large pooled effect sizes favoring digital interventions were found for generalized anxiety disorder ( g = 0.62), mixed anxiety samples ( g = 0.68), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia ( g = 1.08) and social anxiety disorder ( g = 0.76) subgroups. No subgroups were significantly different or related to the pooled effect size. Notably, the effects of guided interventions ( g = 0.84) and unguided interventions ( g = 0.64) were not significantly different. Supplemental analysis comparing digital and face-to-face interventions (9 comparisons; 683 participants) found no significant difference in effect [ g = 0.14 favoring digital interventions; Confidence Interval: −0.01 to 0.30]. Conclusion The precise and powerful estimates found further justify the application of digital interventions for anxiety disorders in place of wait-list or usual care.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291721001999

Cites

101 of 101 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. American Psychiatric, A. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). Arlington, VA, Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
  2. RevMan (2020). Review Manager Web (RevMan Web): The Cochraine Collaboration; Available at https://revman.cochrane.org.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pauley, D., Cuijpers, P., Papola, D., Miguel, C., & Karyotaki, E.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Pauley, Darin
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2021-05-28
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W3165857807
Cited by
170
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
digital interventions, anxiety disorders, treatment effectiveness, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, medication adherence, access to mental health care
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Panic Disorder, Treatment Outcome

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