Cited by 23Digital Mental Health InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Evidence on Technology-Based Psychological Interventions in Diagnosed Depression: Systematic Review

Open access
Köhnen, Moritz, Dreier, Mareike, Seeralan, Tharanya, Kriston, Levente, Härter, Martin, Baumeister, Harald, Liebherz, Sarah·2021·JMIR Mental Health

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Evidence on technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) for the treatment of depression is rapidly growing and covers a broad scope of research. Despite extensive research in this field, guideline recommendations are still limited to the general effectiveness of TBIs. Objective: This study aims to structure evidence on TBIs by considering different application areas (eg, TBIs for acute treatment and their implementation in health care, such as stand-alone interventions) and treatment characteristics (eg, therapeutic rationale of TBIs) to provide a comprehensive evidence base and to identify research gaps in TBIs for diagnosed depression. Moreover, the reporting of negative events in the included studies is investigated in this review to enable subsequent safety assessment of the TBIs. Methods: Randomized controlled trials on adults diagnosed with unipolar depression receiving any kind of psychotherapeutic treatment, which was at least partly delivered by a technical medium, were eligible for inclusion in our preregistered systematic review. We searched for trials in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; until August 2020), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL; until the end of January 2018), clinical trial registers, and sources of gray literature (until the end of January 2019). Study selection and data extraction were conducted by 2 review authors independently. Results: Database searches resulted in 15,546 records, of which 241 publications were included, representing 83 completed studies and 60 studies awaiting classification (ie, preregistered studies, study protocols). Almost all completed studies (78/83, 94%) addressed the acute treatment phase, being largely either implemented as stand-alone interventions (66/83, 80%) or blended treatment approaches (12/83, 14%). Studies on TBIs for aftercare (4/83, 5%) and for bridging waiting periods (1/83, 1%) were scarce. Most TBI study arms (n=107) were guided (59/107, 55.1%), delivered via the internet (80/107, 74.8%), and based on cognitive behavioral treatment approaches (88/107, 79.4%). Almost all studies (77/83, 93%) reported information on negative events, considering dropouts from treatment as a negative event. However, reports on negative events were heterogeneous and largely unsystematic. Conclusions: Research has given little attention to studies evaluating TBIs for aftercare and for bridging waiting periods in people with depression, even though TBIs are seen as highly promising in these application areas; thus, high quality studies are urgently needed. In addition, the variety of therapeutic rationales on TBIs has barely been represented by identified studies hindering the consideration of patient preferences when planning treatment. Finally, future studies should use specific guidelines to systematically assess and report negative events. Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028042

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 · 10.2196/21700

Cites

131 of 131 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

1 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]DGPPN BÄK KBV AWMF for the guideline group unipolar depression S3 Guideline/National Disease Management Guideline Unipolar Depression – Long Version, 2nd edition. Version 5 2015 www.depression.versorgungsleitlinien.de

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Köhnen, M., Dreier, M., Seeralan, T., Kriston, L., Härter, M., Baumeister, H., & Liebherz, S.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Köhnen, Moritz
Venue
JMIR Mental Health
Published
2021-02-10
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
e21700
ISSN
2368-7959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3103035999
Cited by
23
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, major depressive disorder, online intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, acute treatment, follow-up care, blended treatment, treatment safety, research gaps, digital mental health, treatment discontinuation, waiting lists, guideline recommendations, adults with depression, reporting quality

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