A systematic review of digital and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy for depression
Open accessAbstract
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) represents one of the major treatment options for depressive disorders besides pharmacological interventions. While newly developed digital CBT approaches hold important advantages due to higher accessibility, their relative effectiveness compared to traditional CBT remains unclear. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all studies that conducted a CBT-based intervention (face-to-face or digital) in patients with major depression. Random-effects meta-analytic models of the standardized mean change using raw score standardization (SMCR) were computed. In 106 studies including n = 11854 patients face-to-face CBT shows superior clinical effectiveness compared to digital CBT when investigating depressive symptoms (p < 0.001, face-to-face CBT: SMCR = 1.97, 95%-CI: 1.74–2.13, digital CBT: SMCR = 1.20, 95%-CI: 1.08–1.32) and adherence (p = 0.014, face-to-face CBT: 82.4%, digital CBT: 72.9%). However, after accounting for differences between face-to-face and digital CBT studies, both approaches indicate similar effectiveness. Important variables with significant moderation effects include duration of the intervention, baseline severity, adherence and the level of human guidance in digital CBT interventions. After accounting for potential confounders our analysis indicates comparable effectiveness of face-to-face and digital CBT approaches. These findings underline the importance of moderators of clinical effects and provide a basis for the future personalization of CBT treatment in depression.
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
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?
Effective evidence-based treatments exist for mental health concerns.
“Effective evidence-based treatments exist3-5; however, accessing this care remains a substantial challenge.”
From Using Machine Learning to Match Clients and Therapy Providers: Evaluating Clinical Quality and Cost of Care (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 103
- Authors
- Kambeitz-Ilankovic, L., Rzayeva, U., Völkel, L., Wenzel, J., Weiske, J., Jessen, F., Reininghaus, U., Uhlhaas, P. J., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., & Kambeitz, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Cologne (DE)
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- King's College London (GB)
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Kambeitz, Joseph
- ORCID
- Venue
- npj Digital Medicine
- Published
- 2022-09-15
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 144-144
- ISSN
- 2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9476400
- OpenAlex
- W4295927571
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 14
- FWCI
- 3.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
- European Commission (602152)
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KA 4413/1-1, 491454339)
- H. Lundbeck A/S
- Cilag
- 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 › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy, major depressive disorder, treatment effectiveness, medication adherence, treatment moderators, intervention duration, baseline depression severity, personalized treatment
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
