CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 293 of the 293 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Digital interventions for the treatment of depression: a meta-analytic review

Open access
Moshe, Isaac, Terhorst, Yannik, Philippi, Paula, Domhardt, Matthias, Cuijpers, Pim, Cristea, Ioana, Pulkki-Råback, Laura, Baumeister, Harald, Sander, Lasse B.·2021·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/bul0000334
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The high global prevalence of depression, together with the recent acceleration of remote care owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted increased interest in the efficacy of digital interventions for the treatment of depression. We provide a summary of the latest evidence base for digital interventions in the treatment of depression based on the largest study sample to date. A systematic literature search identified 83 studies (N = 15,530) that randomly allocated participants to a digital intervention for depression versus an active or inactive control condition. Overall heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 84%). Using a random-effects multilevel metaregression model, we found a significant medium overall effect size of digital interventions compared with all control conditions (g = .52). Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences between interventions and different control conditions (WLC: g = .70; attention: g = .36; TAU: g = .31), significantly higher effect sizes in interventions that involved human therapeutic guidance (g = .63) compared with self-help interventions (g = .34), and significantly lower effect sizes for effectiveness trials (g = .30) compared with efficacy trials (g = .59). We found no significant difference in outcomes between smartphone-based apps and computer- and Internet-based interventions and no significant difference between human-guided digital interventions and face-to-face psychotherapy for depression, although the number of studies in both comparisons was low. Findings from the current meta-analysis provide evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of digital interventions for the treatment of depression for a variety of populations. However, reported effect sizes may be exaggerated because of publication bias, and compliance with digital interventions outside of highly controlled settings remains a significant challenge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000334

Cites

293 of 293 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 390

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moshe, I., Terhorst, Y., Philippi, P., Domhardt, M., Cuijpers, P., Cristea, I., Pulkki-Råback, L., Baumeister, H., & Sander, L. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
Corresponding author
Moshe, Isaac
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2021-08
Volume
147
Issue
8
Pages
749-786
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/bul0000334
OpenAlex
W4205983219
Semantic Scholar
465098517e78d0cda5fff852518ff0e9bfb4e24b
Cited by
390
References
292
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 2
FWCI
47.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Suomen Kulttuurirahasto
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
digital interventions, depression treatment, mobile application, computer-based intervention, online intervention, self-help intervention, remote care, COVID-19 pandemic, publication bias, intervention adherence
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Depression, Humans, Pandemics

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.

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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