Cited by 499Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesStudent Stress and Coping

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Computer-Delivered and Web-Based Interventions to Improve Depression, Anxiety, and Psychological Well-Being of University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Davies, E Bethan, Morriss, Richard, Glazebrook, Cris·2014·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common mental health difficulties experienced by university students and can impair academic and social functioning. Students are limited in seeking help from professionals. As university students are highly connected to digital technologies, Web-based and computer-delivered interventions could be used to improve students' mental health. The effectiveness of these intervention types requires investigation to identify whether these are viable prevention strategies for university students. OBJECTIVE: The intent of the study was to systematically review and analyze trials of Web-based and computer-delivered interventions to improve depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and stress in university students. METHODS: Several databases were searched using keywords relating to higher education students, mental health, and eHealth interventions. The eligibility criteria for studies included in the review were: (1) the study aimed to improve symptoms relating to depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and stress, (2) the study involved computer-delivered or Web-based interventions accessed via computer, laptop, or tablet, (3) the study was a randomized controlled trial, and (4) the study was trialed on higher education students. Trials were reviewed and outcome data analyzed through random effects meta-analyses for each outcome and each type of trial arm comparison. Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. RESULTS: A total of 17 trials were identified, in which seven were the same three interventions on separate samples; 14 reported sufficient information for meta-analysis. The majority (n=13) were website-delivered and nine interventions were based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). A total of 1795 participants were randomized and 1480 analyzed. Risk of bias was considered moderate, as many publications did not sufficiently report their methods and seven explicitly conducted completers' analyses. In comparison to the inactive control, sensitivity meta-analyses supported intervention in improving anxiety (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.56; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.35, P<.001), depression (pooled SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.22, P<.001), and stress (pooled SMD -0.73; 95% CI -1.27 to -0.19, P=.008). In comparison to active controls, sensitivity analyses did not support either condition for anxiety (pooled SMD -0.18; 95% CI -0.98 to 0.62, P=.66) or depression (pooled SMD -0.28; 95% CI -0.75 to -0.20, P=.25). In contrast to a comparison intervention, neither condition was supported in sensitivity analyses for anxiety (pooled SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.18, P=.48) or depression (pooled SMD -0.33; 95% CI -0.43 to 1.09, P=.40). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest Web-based and computer-delivered interventions can be effective in improving students' depression, anxiety, and stress outcomes when compared to inactive controls, but some caution is needed when compared to other trial arms and methodological issues were noticeable. Interventions need to be trialed on more heterogeneous student samples and would benefit from user evaluation. Future trials should address methodological considerations to improve reporting of trial quality and address post-intervention skewed data.

Overview

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/jmir.3142

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 80 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Hysenbegasi, A, 2005, J Ment Health Policy Econ, 8, 145
  2. Givi, H, 2012, Koomesh: Journal of Semnan University of Medical Sciences, 13, 218
  3. Higgins, JPT, 2008, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 10.1002/9780470712184 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Deeks, JJ, 2008, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
  5. Ellis, LA, 2011, J Cyber Ther Rehabil, 4, 461
  6. Schunemann, H, 2008, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
  7. Göritz, A, 2006, International Journal of Internet Science, 1, 58
  8. Sterne, JAC, 2008, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
  9. Davis-McCabe, C, 2009, Association for University and College Counselling Journal, November, 25
  10. Grassi, A, 2011, Stud Health Technol Inform, 167, 57

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 499

Metadata

Authors
Davies, E. B., Morriss, R., & Glazebrook, C.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Davies, E Bethan
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2014-05-16
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
e130
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110842912
Cited by
499
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 4
FWCI
2.90
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) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Mental Health Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
Keywords
depression, anxiety, psychological distress, stress, university students, digital health interventions, online intervention, computer-based intervention, cognitive behavioral therapy, student mental health, risk of bias assessment, attrition bias, publication bias, risk of bias in meta-analysis, risk of bias in individual studies
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Stress, Psychological, Students, Universities, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Telemedicine, Internet

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