Cited by 96Digital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMental Health Treatment and Access

The Effects of Nonclinician Guidance on Effectiveness and Process Outcomes in Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Leung, Calista, Pei, Julia, Hudec, Kristen, Shams, Farhud, Munthali, Richard, Vigo, Daniel·2022·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital mental health interventions are increasingly prevalent in the current context of rapidly evolving technology, and research indicates that they yield effectiveness outcomes comparable to in-person treatment. Integrating professionals (ie, psychologists and physicians) into digital mental health interventions has become common, and the inclusion of guidance within programs can increase adherence to interventions. However, employing professionals to enhance mental health programs may undermine the scalability of digital interventions. Therefore, delegating guidance tasks to paraprofessionals (peer supporters, technicians, lay counsellors, or other nonclinicians) can help reduce costs and increase accessibility. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of nonclinician-guided digital mental health interventions. METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2020 examining digital mental health interventions. Three journals that focus on digital intervention were hand searched; gray literature was searched using ProQuest and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL). Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2. Data were collected on effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes, and meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and adherence outcomes. Nonclinician-guided interventions were compared with treatment as usual, clinician-guided interventions, and unguided interventions. RESULTS: Thirteen studies qualified for inclusion. Nonclinician-guided interventions yielded higher posttreatment effectiveness outcomes when compared to conditions involving control programs (eg, online psychoeducation and monitored attention control) or wait-list controls (k=7, Hedges g=-0.73; 95% CI -1.08 to -0.38). There were also significant differences between nonclinician-guided interventions and unguided interventions (k=6, Hedges g=-0.17; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.11). In addition, nonclinician-guided interventions did not differ in effectiveness from clinician-guided interventions (k=3, Hedges g=0.08; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17). These results suggest that guided digital mental health interventions are helpful to improve mental health outcomes regardless of the qualifications of the individual performing the intervention, and that the presence of a nonclinician guide improves effectiveness outcomes compared to having no guide. Nonclinician-guided interventions did not yield significantly different adherence outcomes when compared with unguided interventions (k=3, odds ratio 1.58; 95% CI 0.51 to 4.92), although a general trend of improved adherence was observed within nonclinician-guided interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating paraprofessionals and nonclinicians appears to improve the outcomes of digital mental health interventions, and may also enhance adherence outcomes (though this trend was nonsignificant). Further research should focus on the specific types of tasks these paraprofessionals can successfully provide (ie, psychosocial support, therapeutic alliance, and technical augmentation) and their associated outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020191226; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=191226.

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 · 10.2196/36004

Cites

58 of 58 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [33]Cuijpers P Meta-Analyses in Mental Health Research: A Practical Guide ResearchGate 2016 2021-11-15 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pim-Cuijpers/publication/301815425_Meta-analyses_in_mental_health_research_A_practical_guide/links/5729b16708aef5d48d2cff0a/Meta-analyses-in-mental-health-research-A-practical-guide.pdf?origin=publication_detail
  2. [42]Cohen J Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.) 1988 Hillside, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leung, C., Pei, J., Hudec, K., Shams, F., Munthali, R., & Vigo, D.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Vigo, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2022-06-15
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
e36004
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4229038358
Cited by
94
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
digital mental health interventions, paraprofessionals, peer supporters, lay counselors, intervention adherence, treatment effectiveness, process outcomes, scalability, online psychoeducation, waitlist control, mental health workforce shortage
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health, Treatment Outcome

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