The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of guidance on intervention adherence in computerised interventions for mental health problems: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Web-based interventions are increasingly used for the prevention, treatment and aftercare of mental disorders. A crucial factor to the efficacy of such online programmes is adherence to the intervention content and procedure. It has been frequently suggested that adherence in web-based interventions is low and little is known about which factors influence adherence. To increase intervention uptake and completion, studies increasingly include interventions with some form of guidance. Guided interventions have been shown to have higher efficacy, however, evidence for the impact on adherence is limited and mixed. This meta-analysis explored the impact of human guidance on intervention completion in web-based mental health interventions. A total of 22 studies were included with interventions primarily targeting symptoms of depression and anxiety disorders. Results showed that guidance significantly increases the average amount of intervention completion [ g = 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18–0.40] and the proportion of intervention completers [ log odds ratio (OR) = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34–0.66] with small effects. On average, full completion rates were 12% higher in guided intervention groups. This meta-analysis demonstrated that guidance in web-based mental health interventions does increase adherence, but more research is required to better understand the specific mechanisms between guidance, adherence and outcomes.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Additional support in other studies (3/22, 14%) was provided to a group of participants; however, this type of support has been excluded from definitions of guidance [74].”
From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [74]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Eysenbach, G. (2005) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11 · Cited by 2,524
Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
Peters, J. L. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.676 · Cited by 2,278
A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints
Harbord, R. M., Egger, M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2380 · Cited by 2,267 · cited 2×
“Visual inspection of the funnel plot of the log ORs plotted against the standard error of the outcome did not suggest the presence of publication bias. assessment is supported by the high p values obtained in the Harbord ( z = 0.75, p = 0.452) and Peters tests ( z = 0.97, p = 0.330).”
MethodInfluentialMetaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- StataCorp, LLC. (2019). Stata Statistical Software. Release 16.[software]. College Station, TX. In: Stata Press. Available at: https://www.stata.com/.
- 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Simon, L., Steinmetz, L., Feige, B., Benz, F., Spiegelhalder, K., & Baumeister, H. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28853-0 · Cited by 145
MindfulDiary: Harnessing Large Language Model to Support Psychiatric Patients' Journaling
Kim, T., Bae, S., Kim, H. A., Lee, S. H., Hong, H., Yang, C.-M., & Kim, Y. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642937 · Cited by 173
Considering the role of human empathy in AI-driven therapy
Rubin, M., Arnon, H., Huppert, J. D., & Perry, A. (2024) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/56529 · Cited by 111
Klimczak, K. S., San Miguel, G. G., Mukasa, M. N., Twohig, M. P., & Levin, M. E. (2023) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506073.2023.2178498 · Cited by 88
“Additionally, findings are mixed regarding the impact of these human-supports on adherence and treatment efficacy (Musiat et al., 2021; Shim et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMadrid‐Cagigal, A., Kealy, C., Potts, C., Mulvenna, M. D., Byrne, M., Barry, M. M., & Donohoe, G. (2025) · Early Intervention in Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/eip.70017 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Musiat, P., Johnson, C., Atkinson, M., Wilksch, S., & Wade, T.
- Affiliations
- Flinders University (AU)
- University of Bath (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Musiat, Peter
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-11-22
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 229-240
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W3215127018
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 14
- FWCI
- 3.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure (University of Bath) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP170100237)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- intervention adherence, online intervention, guided intervention, human guidance, intervention completion, mental health, depression, anxiety disorders
- MeSH terms
- Internet-Based Intervention, Humans, Mental Health, Internet
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
