Cited by 37Digital Mental Health InterventionsSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Are digital interventions effective in reducing suicidal ideation and self-harm? A systematic review

Stefanopoulou, Evgenia, Hogarth, Harry, Taylor, Matthew, Russell-Haines, Karen, Lewis, David, Larkin, Jan·2020·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

Background: There is a significant lack of outcomes research examining the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing suicidal ideation and self-harm.Aims: To systematically review the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing suicidal ideation and self-harm in adult populations. The possible mediating effects of depression are also discussed.Methods: The databases Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, IEEEXplore, ACM and CRESP were searched. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias using standard assessment criteria.Results: Fourteen RCTs were reviewed, reporting data on 3455 participants. Although findings were more consistent for the effectiveness of online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), Mindfulness-Based CBT and Dialectical Behavioural Therapy, there was insufficient research to consider any as evidence-based treatments for suicidal ideation and self-harm.Conclusions: Digital interventions for suicidal ideation and self-harm can be a safe and acceptable option for individuals unwilling or unable to access face-to-face interventions. However, further research is needed to understand the types of interventions that could support people and the risk-benefit ratio of digital interventions for these individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638237.2020.1714009

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stefanopoulou, E., Hogarth, H., Taylor, M., Russell-Haines, K., Lewis, D., & Larkin, J.
Affiliations
Turning Point, Registered Charity, London, UK
Corresponding author
Stefanopoulou, Evgenia
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2020-01-28
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
207-216
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W3003719972
Cited by
37
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
digital interventions, suicidal ideation, self-harm, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, depression, treatment effectiveness, adults
MeSH terms
Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Self-Injurious Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Suicidal Ideation, Mobile Applications, Mindfulness

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