MINI REVIEW article
The Influence of Human Support on the Effectiveness of Digital Mental Health Promotion Interventions for the General Population
- Lifestyle Medicine and Health Research Center, Avondale University College, Cooranbong, NSW, Australia
Mental wellbeing amongst the general population is languishing—exacerbated by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Digital mental health promotion interventions, that improve mental health literacy and encourage adoption of evidence-informed practical strategies are essential. However, attrition and non-adherence are problematic in digital interventions. Human support is often applied as an antidote; yet, there is a paucity of randomized trials that compare different human support conditions amongst general population cohorts. Limited trials generally indicate that human support has little influence on adherence or outcomes in DMHPIs. However, providing participants autonomy to self-select automated support options may enhance motivation and adherence.
As the world deals with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a parallel crisis in mental wellbeing is emerging. Prior to the pandemic, depression was a leading cause of global disability (World Health Organization, 2019) and, in high income countries, depression and anxiety were the third and fourth highest reasons, respectively, for visiting a primary care physician (Finley et al., 2018). Furthermore, treatment coverage for mental health disorders was already extremely low, particularly in low income nations (World Health Organization, 2019). Alarmingly, extensive deterioration in mental wellbeing has been detected globally since the pandemic began (Ammar et al., 2020; Pera, 2020) across all sectors (e.g., general public, health workers, and those with pre-existing psychological conditions) (Vindegaard and Benros, 2020), with one study reporting that mental distress had doubled since the pandemic (Fisher et al., 2020).
The ensuing mental health crisis requires urgent, evidence-based, and interdisciplinary action (Campion et al., 2020; Holmes et al., 2020), and the use of digital technologies such as computers, tablets, and smartphones offers opportunities for the delivery of digital (i.e., Web- and app-based) interventions that are highly portable, accessible, and scalable. With primary care services urgently required to assist patients in clinical settings, evidence-informed digital mental health promotion interventions (DMHPIs) provide a pathway to enhance the mental health of the general population (Campion et al., 2020; Holmes et al., 2020; Marshall et al., 2020; Renfrew et al., 2020a; Przybylko et al., 2021a).
DMHPIs may improve the mental/emotional wellbeing of general population groups through a range of diverse approaches that enhance resilience and relieve stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Suitable interventions may incorporate strategies from the fields of psychology (e.g., cognitive behavior therapy) (Lau et al., 2017; Cuijpers et al., 2019; Karyotaki et al., 2021), positive psychology (e.g., practicing gratitude, writing positive experiences, kindness) (Bolier et al., 2013; Drozd et al., 2014; Galante et al., 2014; Dickens, 2017; Hendriks et al., 2020; Koydemir et al., 2020), lifestyle medicine (e.g., physical activity, nutrition, access to green space) (Penedo and Dahn, 2005; Quirk et al., 2013; Cooney et al., 2014; Dale et al., 2014; Sarris et al., 2014, 2015; Cohen-Cline et al., 2015; Conner et al., 2015; Jacka et al., 2017) and various other practices which cross over several of the abovementioned fields (e.g., mindfulness, meditation) (Spijkerman et al., 2016; Galante et al., 2021).
Despite the advantages of digital delivery, high attrition (i.e., dropout) and low adherence (i.e., participants not engaging with the intervention as intended by designers) often compromise the outcomes of digitally-delivered interventions (Couper et al., 2010; Mohr et al., 2011, 2013b; Kelders et al., 2012; Richards and Richardson, 2012; Kohl et al., 2013; Short et al., 2014; Spijkerman et al., 2016; Linardon and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2020). While there are numerous theoretical perspectives on factors that improve attrition and adherence (Ryan et al., 2018), a commonly purported facilitator is human support, often referred to as “guidance” (Mohr et al., 2011; Baumeister et al., 2014; Alkhaldi et al., 2016; Ebert et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2018; Linardon and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2020). It is important to evaluate the evidence regarding human support as a modifying factor in attrition and adherence to DMPHIs, as the addition of human support has cost implications (Mohr et al., 2013a; Morledge et al., 2013; Drozd et al., 2014; Michie et al., 2017), limits scalability, and requires the time of scarce human personnel (Mohr et al., 2013a). On the other hand, human support may improve adherence through prompting participants to engage, fostering participant accountability, strengthening motivation, and therefore optimizing outcomes (Mohr et al., 2011; Schueller et al., 2016).
This mini review evaluated the effectiveness of adding human support to DMHPIs for employees and general community groups. A search (using PubMed, reviews and other sources) revealed a paucity of randomized trials that directly compared supported with unsupported conditions for non-clinical groups in work and community settings. Hence, the search was widened to include suitable meta-analytic reviews to evaluate trends between guided and unguided conditions in the workplace and general community. This review also appraised the findings from recent studies conducted by the authors that compared different human support conditions amongst a general community cohort.
While early studies among clinical cohorts suggested that adding human support to digital interventions improved outcomes (Richards and Richardson, 2012; Baumeister et al., 2014), more recent studies have demonstrated mixed results (Shim et al., 2017). For example, some clinical studies have shown no difference in the outcomes of self-guided vs. supported digital interventions (Titov et al., 2015, 2016; Ivanova et al., 2016; Mira et al., 2017; Dear et al., 2018a,b; Eimontas et al., 2018; Zagorscak et al., 2018). Moreover, it is feasible that the requirement for added human support elements in DMHPIs for healthy non-clinical population groups may be different to unwell clinical population cohorts where symptoms of disease or disorder (e.g., general malaise, compromised motivation) may impede adherence (Mohr et al., 2013b; Deady et al., 2017; Karekla et al., 2019; Karyotaki et al., 2021).
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, regarding the effectiveness of workplace DMHPIs, present mixed evidence with regards to the influence of the addition of human support (Stratton et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2019). For example, in a systematic review and meta-analysis, by Phillips et al. (2019), guided interventions consistently demonstrated higher effect sizes than unguided in all the areas of measurement: stress (Hedges g = 0.76 for guided and g = 0.27 for unguided), depression (g = 0.48 and g = 0.23), anxiety (g = 0.48 and g = 0.26), burnout (g = 0.69 and g = 0.33), insomnia (g = 1.00 and g = 0.53), mindfulness (g = 0.57 and g = 0.36) and wellbeing (no guided studies, unguided g = 0.35). However, the authors recommended caution as heterogeneity was high in the pooled analysis of 22 RCTs and subgroup analyses were underpowered. Conversely, Stratton et al. (2017) demonstrated that supported conditions (g = 0.27) were similar in effects to unsupported (g = 0.22). However, different types of approaches revealed heterogenous effects in regard to human support. Cognitive behavior therapy demonstrated low effects in both conditions, stress management showed small effects for supported, but negative effects in unsupported conditions. Mindfulness, which was only administered in unsupported conditions, demonstrated moderate effects (Hedges g = 0.59).
Carolan et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review of 21 digital psychological interventions for employees and reported similar outcomes for both supported and unsupported interventions (guided g = 0.39, self-guided g = 0.34). Notably, in further examination of 7 studies that reported the highest adherence and lowest attrition, human support was only one of four common elements: human support (used in 5/7 studies); use of persuasive system design principles (all studies); 6- or 7-week program length (a mean of 6.6 week length compared to a mean of 8.1 weeks in the other 14 studies); and, the use of “secondary modalities” (e.g., emails, text messaging) in intervention delivery (6/7 studies).
Two randomized trials compared human support conditions in workplace settings. Allexandre et al. (2016), compared three support conditions (i.e., no support, group support, and group support plus therapist support) in a workplace digital mindfulness and stress management intervention. The addition of therapist support added no benefit, but general group support improved both outcomes and adherence compared to those who received no support. Albeit, overall, adherence was low−50% of participants never logged on to the intervention. Additionally, the intervention was digitally-delivered but support was provided face-to-face.
A pooled analysis of three RCTs (Zarski et al., 2016) compared human support in a digital stress management workplace intervention. Researchers identified that “content” support (i.e., personalized written feedback for tasks completed) and “adherence” support (i.e., monitoring module completion and sending reminders) did improve adherence behavior in comparison to only “administrative” support (i.e., provision of contact details for technical support). Although there were no significant differences in adherence between the “content” and “adherence” focused support, the time investment required by support personnel for the adherence-focused support was considerably lower, which highlights substantial cost implications dependent on different support variables (e.g., mode, intensity, and frequency).
Meta-analytical reviews of studies in community settings generally demonstrated improved effects in supported conditions; although, authors of one meta-analytical review (Deady et al., 2017) refrained from evaluating differences between supported and unsupported conditions due to high heterogeneity. In a meta-analysis (Koydemir et al., 2020), which included 68 RCTs of positive psychology interventions for community cohorts, some delivered digitally and some delivered face-to-face, significant differences were found between self-guided interventions and those facilitated face-to-face. The effect size for the face-to-face condition (d = 0.32) was almost twice the self-guided condition (d = 0.17), although effect sizes were in the lower range for both conditions. A meta-analysis by Heber et al. (2017) evaluated the efficacy of Web- and computer-based studies for stress management amongst generally healthy adults. Sub-group analysis showed that supported and unsupported conditions demonstrated positive effects, though supported conditions (Cohen d = 0.64) were almost double the effect size of unsupported (d = 0.33).
While access to human support is often desired by non-clinical DMHPI users (Carolan and de Visser, 2018; Renfrew et al., 2020b), its effectiveness in improving adherence or outcomes is less convincing, based on three randomized studies that compared human support variables and targeted general community cohorts. In a three-pronged RCT (Morledge et al., 2013), participants from the general population were recruited to assess the effectiveness of a digital mindfulness intervention. Participants in one intervention group completed the activities with no added human support, while those in a second intervention group were encouraged to interact through an online message board that was hosted by a facilitator. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements compared to the control group; yet, no significant differences in measurement outcomes were observed between the two intervention groups. Notably, 85% of those in the message board group reported that the message board was of little or no value (Morledge et al., 2013). Mira et al. (2017), in an RCT designed to assist participants to cope with difficulties and depressive symptoms, compared an automated human support condition with the same condition plus weekly phone calls. Both groups improved significantly compared to control and no differences in attrition, adherence or outcomes were observed. Furthermore, participant satisfaction was high in both intervention groups.
In a digital relaxation training intervention (Alfonsson et al., 2016), self-selected participants from the general population were randomized to either “normal” treatment (i.e., black/white text files, weekly support from a trained therapist) or “enhanced” treatment (i.e., color text, video format, daily therapist support). Participants in both treatments improved significantly, irrespective of differing levels of support. The participant relationship with the support therapist did not predict adherence; rather, attrition, and non-adherence were predicted by low intrinsic motivation, low perceived treatment credibility, baseline stress symptoms, and focus on immediate behavior consequences rather than long term goals. Conversely, adherence was positively correlated with intrinsic motivation, education level, and treatment credibility, including belief in the effectiveness of the online format.
Recent Research by the Authors
We have previously reported the results of a 10-week DMHPI that was implemented in a general population setting. The interdisciplinary intervention, that integrated strategies from the fields of positive psychology and lifestyle medicine, compared the influence of three different modes of human support on outcomes (Renfrew et al., 2020a) and adherence (Renfrew et al., 2020b). Participants were randomized into groups that received differing levels of human support: automated email support only, automated email support with added personalized text messaging, and automated email support plus a weekly, facilitated, group videoconference session. Significant pre- to post-intervention improvements in outcomes were recorded in every group irrespective of the human support condition. Similarly, adherence (i.e., viewing weekly video content, and completing daily and weekly experiential activities) was not significantly different between the groups. Further, no differences in either adherence or improvements in wellbeing metrics were observed between those participants who were randomized to their first preference for human support and those who were not (Renfrew et al., 2020b). Nonetheless, despite the apparent lack of effect of human support, 45% of the entire study cohort indicated they would prefer to have all forms of human support available to them (Renfrew et al., 2020b). The reasons for this are unclear, it may be that participants like the autonomy to choose from a broad range of choices, even when they have no interest in accessing all options.
We reported low attendance at videoconference support sessions, with 36% of the participants allocated to this group never attending a session and only 18% attending seven or more of the 10 sessions (Renfrew et al., 2020b). Consequently, the human support experience for many participants in this group was effectually the same as for those in the automated emails only group. Nevertheless, secondary analysis revealed that participants who attended seven or more videoconference sessions did experience significantly greater improvements in overall mental health, vitality, depression and life satisfaction compared to those who attended less than seven sessions; although, numerous variables (e.g., motivation level) may have contributed to this difference (Renfrew et al., 2020a).
We also examined the influence of a DMHPI on the experience of “flourishing” (Przybylko et al., 2021b), which is a construct used to express a high level of human functioning. We found that the inclusion of text messaging support, or weekly videoconferencing support, had no additional benefit in the enhancement of flourishing. Notably, in our research we have observed highest attrition rates among participants who were randomized to a treatment group that involved the greatest level of human support. Participants in the aforementioned human support comparative study had agreed to take part regardless of which arm of the study they were allocated to, however, 32% of those assigned to the videoconferencing group—the highest level of human support offered—withdrew upon receiving notification of their allocation (Renfrew et al., 2020a). The dropout attrition was significantly greater (P = .009) than attrition in the other two arms of the study that involved mostly automated support. Furthermore, videoconferencing was the least desired form of support by participants—just 7% indicated it as their preferred support method. Interestingly, 22% of participants preferred email support, 26% preferred emails plus text messaging, and the remaining 45% desired access to all support forms.
To gain further insight into participant perspectives, we conducted a qualitative study (Renfrew et al., 2021) using inductive thematic analysis to examine user perceptions regarding facilitators of, and barriers to, adherence. The provision of human support did not feature as a perceived facilitator of adherence. Rather, perceived facilitators were engaging presentations, time availability, ease of accessibility, easy or interesting experiential activities, and personal motivation augmented by the perception that the intervention would be highly valuable. Overwhelmingly, the largest perceived barrier to adherence was lack of time, which is similar to that reported by other recent studies in workplace settings (Carolan and de Visser, 2018; Blankenhagel et al., 2019). Other barriers, some of them also time related, were presentation length, time consuming system design elements, technical issues, and a wide array of interpersonal factors that generally related to wellbeing (e.g., illness) or capacity (e.g., motivation). Notably, the addition of human support is not likely to assist in overcoming the abovementioned barriers, or further enhance the perceived facilitators of adherence.
The emerging, but limited body of evidence indicates that human support is not the panacea for attrition, adherence and outcomes in DMHPIs for a general community cohort; rather, the influences on adherence are multifactorial and complex. In a scoping review, Ryan et al. (2018) concluded that adherence to digital interventions is impacted by a range of technological, environmental and individual influences that require interdisciplinary cooperation (Ryan et al., 2018). Zarski et al. (2016) likewise concluded that many interindividual differences related to adherence remain unknown.
The evidence in this mini review indicates that DMHPIs may be implemented among work-based and general community cohorts without the need for added human support. While the meta-analytical reviews generally demonstrated that human support improved adherence and augmented positive effects, the few randomized trials indicated that self-guided conditions were comparable, in adherence, and outcomes, to conditions that included human support. Notwithstanding, the indication that general population cohorts often desire access to human support signifies that it is a desirable element that should be considered as an automated component in intervention design.
One possible option to incorporating automated human support, is a flexible, elective approach in which intervention creators provide participants with substantial autonomy to customize support along with other discretionary features (e.g., gamification). For instance, self-tailoring or personalizing an intervention might include choosing human support options from a range of automated modes (e.g., text message reminders, email notifications), and choosing the intensity and frequency of support, based on individual preference.
Identified in Self-determination Theory as one of three core basic needs for humans—autonomy, along with relatedness (i.e., connection) and competence—when fostered well, create the supportive conditions for intrinsic motivation to be optimized (Ryan and Deci, 2000), and greater intrinsic motivation has been linked to greater adherence (Mohr et al., 2011; Alfonsson et al., 2016). Importantly, the autonomy to choose from different automated support options, along with providing choice in other discretionary features may assist in stimulating intrinsic motivation to adhere to a program (Yardley et al., 2016), resulting in improved outcomes.
Finally, evidence that adding human support improves attrition, adherence, and outcomes of DMHPIs for general population groups is limited and mixed. Furthermore, it is evident that well designed, self-guided interventions can be effective in enhancing mental wellbeing. Nevertheless, human support is generally desired by intervention participants. Providing autonomy for participants to individualize or self-tailor an intervention, by selecting personal preferences for automated support and other discretionary features, might enhance participant experience and also bolster intrinsic motivation to adhere to a program—an area for further research. Carefully designed DMHPIs, that include automated forms of human support, should be urgently implemented in community settings to alleviate the COVID-19 pandemic-related decline in mental wellbeing.
MR and DM conceptualized the study and outlined the review structure. MR wrote the initial manuscript and all authors were involved in the revising and editing process.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Alfonsson, S., Olsson, E., and Hursti, T. (2016). Motivation and treatment credibility predicts dropout, treatment adherence, and clinical outcomes in an Internet-based cognitive behavioral relaxation program: a randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 18:e52. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5352
Alkhaldi, G., Hamilton, F. L., Lau, R., Webster, R., Michie, S., and Murray, E. (2016). The effectiveness of prompts to promote engagement with digital interventions: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 18:4790. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4790
Allexandre, D., Bernstein, A. M., Walker, E., Hunter, J., Roizen, M. F., and Morledge, T. J. (2016). A web-based mindfulness stress management program in a corporate call center: A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the added benefit of onsite group support. J. Occupat. Environ. Med. 58:254. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000680
Ammar, A., Mueller, P., Trabelsi, K., Chtourou, H., Boukhris, O., Masmoudi, L., et al. (2020). Psychological consequences of COVID-19 home confinement: The ECLB-COVID19 multicenter study. PLoS ONE 15:e0240204. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240204
Baumeister, H., Reichler, L., Munzinger, M., and Lin, J. (2014). The impact of guidance on Internet-based mental health interventions—a systematic review. Int. Intervent. 1, 205–215. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2014.08.003
Blankenhagel, K.J., Theilig, M.-M., Koch, H., Witte, A.-K., and Zarnekow, R. (2019). “Challenges for preventive digital stress management systems—Identifying requirements by conducting qualitative interviews,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G., Riper, H., Smit, F., and Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health 13:119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-119
Carolan, S., and de Visser, R. O. (2018). Employees" perspectives on the facilitators and barriers to engaging with digital mental health interventions in the workplace: Qualitative study. JMIR Mental Health 5:e8. doi: 10.2196/mental.9146
Carolan, S., Harris, P. R., and Cavanagh, K. (2017). Improving employee well-being and effectiveness: systematic review and meta-analysis of Web-based psychological interventions delivered in the workplace. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:e271. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7583
Cohen-Cline, H., Turkheimer, E., and Duncan, G. E. (2015). Access to green space, physical activity and mental health: a twin study. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 69, 523–529. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-204667
Conner, T. S., Brookie, K. L., Richardson, A. C., and Polak, M. A. (2015). On carrots and curiosity: Eating fruit and vegetables is associated with greater flourishing in daily life. Br. J. Health Psychol. 20, 413–427. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12113
Couper, M. P., Alexander, G. L., Zhang, N., Little, R. J., Maddy, N., Nowak, M. A., et al. (2010). Engagement and retention: measuring breadth and depth of participant use of an online intervention. J. Med. Internet Res. 12:e52. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1430
Cuijpers, P., Noma, H., Karyotaki, E., Cipriani, A., and Furukawa, T. A. (2019). Effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive behavior therapy delivery formats in adults with depression: a network meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 268. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0268
Dale, H., Brassington, L., and King, K. (2014). The impact of healthy lifestyle interventions on mental health and wellbeing: a systematic review. Mental Health Rev. J. 19, 1–26. doi: 10.1108/MHRJ-05-2013-0016
Deady, M., Choi, I., Calvo, R., Glozier, N., Christensen, H., and Harvey, S. (2017). eHealth interventions for the prevention of depression and anxiety in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 17:310. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1473-1
Dear, B. F., Fogliati, V. J., Fogliati, R., Johnson, B., Boyle, O., Karin, E., et al. (2018a). Treating anxiety and depression in young adults: a randomised controlled trial comparing clinician-guided versus self-guided Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy. Austr. NZ J. Psychiatry 52, 668–679. doi: 10.1177/0004867417738055
Dear, B. F., Gandy, M., Karin, E., Fogliati, R., Fogliati, V. J., Staples, L. G., et al. (2018b). The pain course: 12-and 24-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of an Internet-delivered pain management program provided with different levels of clinician support. J. Pain. 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.005
Dickens, L. R. (2017). Using gratitude to promote positive change: a series of meta-analyses investigating the effectiveness of gratitude interventions. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 39, 193–208. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2017.1323638
Drozd, F., Mork, L., Nielsen, B., Raeder, S., and Bjørkli, C. A. (2014). Better days–A randomized controlled trial of an Internet-based positive psychology intervention. J. Posit. Psychol. 9, 377–388. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2014.910822
Ebert, D. D., Van Daele, T., Nordgreen, T., Karekla, M., Compare, A., Zarbo, C., et al. (2018). Internet-and mobile-based psychological interventions: applications, efficacy, and potential for improving mental health. Euro. Psychol. 318. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000318
Eimontas, J., Gegieckaite, G., Dovydaitiene, M., Mazulyte, E., Rimsaite, Z., Skruibis, P., et al. (2018). The role of therapist support on effectiveness of an internet-based modular self-help intervention for adjustment disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Anxiety Stress Coping 31, 146–158. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2017.1385065
Finley, C. R., Chan, D. S., Garrison, S., Korownyk, C., Kolber, M. R., Campbell, S., et al. (2018). What are the most common conditions in primary care?: systematic review. Can. Fam. Physic. 64, 832–840. https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/64/11/832.full.pdf
Fisher, J. R., Tran, T. D., Hammargerg, K., Sastry, J., Nguyen, H., Rowe, H., et al. (2020). Mental health of people in Australia in the first month of COVID-19 restrictions: a national survey. Med. J. Aust. 213, 458–464. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50831
Galante, J., Friedrich, C., Dawson, A. F., Modrego-Alarcón, M., Gebbing, P., Delgado-Suárez, I., et al. (2021). Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 18:e1003481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003481
Galante, J., Galante, I., Bekkers, M.-J., and Gallacher, J. (2014). Effect of kindness-based meditation on health and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Consult. Clinic. Psychol. 82, 1101. doi: 10.1037/a0037249
Heber, E., Ebert, D. D., Lehr, D., Cuijpers, P., Berking, M., Nobis, S., et al. (2017). The benefit of Web- and computer-based interventions for stress: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:e32. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5774
Hendriks, T., Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Hassankhan, A., De Jong, J., and Bohlmeijer, E. (2020). The efficacy of multi-component positive psychology interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Happiness Stud. 21, 357–390. doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00082-1
Holmes, E. A., O'Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arseneault, L., et al. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 3, 472–480. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1
Ivanova, E., Lindner, P., Ly, K. H., Dahlin, M., Vernmark, K., Andersson, G., et al. (2016). Guided and unguided acceptance and commitment therapy for social anxiety disorder and/or panic disorder provided via the Internet and a smartphone application: a randomized controlled trial. J. Anxiety Disord. 44, 27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.09.012
Jacka, F. N., O'Neil, A., Opie, R., Itsiopoulos, C., Cotton, S., Mohebbi, M., et al. (2017). A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ‘SMILES’ trial). BMC Med. 15:23. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y
Karekla, M., Kasinopoulos, O., Neto, D. D., Ebert, D. D., Van Daele, T., Nordgreen, T., et al. (2019). Best practices and recommendations for digital interventions to improve engagement and adherence in chronic illness sufferers. Eur. Psychol. 24:349. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000349
Karyotaki, E., Efthimiou, O., Miguel, C., genannt Bermpohl, F. M., Furukawa, T. A., and Cuijpers, P. (2021). Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression: a systematic review and individual patient data network meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 78, 361–371. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4364
Kelders, S. M., Kok, R. N., Ossebaard, H. C., and Van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. (2012). Persuasive system design does matter: a systematic review of adherence to web-based interventions. J. Med. Internet Res. 14:2104. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2104
Koydemir, S., Sökmez, A. B., and Schütz, A. (2020). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of randomized controlled positive psychological interventions on subjective and psychological well-being. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 1–41. doi: 10.1007/s11482-019-09788-z
Lau, Y., Htun, T. P., Wong, S. N., Tam, W. S. W., and Klainin-Yobas, P. (2017). Therapist-supported internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms among postpartum women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:6712. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6712
Linardon, J., and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2020). Attrition and adherence in smartphone-delivered interventions for mental health problems: a systematic and meta-analytic review. J. Consult. Clinic. Psychol. 88:1. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ccp0000459. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000459
Marshall, J. M., Dunstan, D. A., and Bartik, W. (2020). The role of digital mental health resources to treat trauma symptoms in Australia during COVID-19. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy. 627. doi: 10.1037/tra0000627
Michie, S., Yardley, L., West, R., Patrick, K., and Greaves, F. (2017). Developing and evaluating digital Interventions to promote behavior change in health and health care: recommendations resulting from an international workshop. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:e232. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7126
Mira, A., Bretón-López, J., García-Palacios, A., Quero, S., Baños, R. M., and Botella, C. (2017). An Internet-based program for depressive symptoms using human and automated support: a randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychiatric Dis. Treat. 13:987. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S130994
Mohr, D. C., Burns, M. N., Schueller, S. M., Clarke, G., and Klinkman, M. (2013a). Behavioral intervention technologies: Evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 35, 332–338. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.008
Mohr, D. C., Cuijpers, P., and Lehman, K. (2011). Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to Ehealth interventions. J. Med. Internet Res. 13:1602. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1602
Mohr, D. C., Duffecy, J., Ho, J., Kwasny, M., Cai, X., Burns, M. N., et al. (2013b). A randomized controlled trial evaluating a manualized TeleCoaching protocol for improving adherence to a web-based intervention for the treatment of depression. PLoS ONE 8:e70086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070086
Morledge, T., Allexandre, D., Fox, E., Fu, A., Higashi, M., Kruzikas, D., et al. (2013). Feasibility of an online mindfulness program for stress management—A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Behav. Med. 46, 137–148. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9490-x
Penedo, F. J., and Dahn, J. R. (2005). Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 18, 189–193. doi: 10.1097/00001504-200503000-00013
Phillips, E. A., Gordeev, V. S., and Schreyögg, J. (2019). Effectiveness of occupational e-mental health interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 45, 560–576. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3839
Przybylko, G., Morton, D., Kent, L., Morton, J., Hinze, J., Beamish, P., et al. (2021a). The effectiveness of an online interdisciplinary intervention for mental health promotion: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychology 9:77. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00577-8
Przybylko, G., Morton, D. P., Morton, J. K., Renfrew, M. E., and Hinze, J. (2021b). An interdisciplinary mental wellbeing intervention for increasing flourishing: two experimental studies. J. Positiv. Psychol. 1–16. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2021.1897868
Quirk, S. E., Williams, L. J., O'Neil, A., Pasco, J. A., Jacka, F. N., Housden, S., et al. (2013). The association between diet quality, dietary patterns and depression in adults: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 13:175. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-175
Renfrew, M. E., Morton, D. P., Morton, J. K., Hinze, J. S., Beamish, P. J., Przybylko, G., et al. (2020a). A Web-and mobile app–based mental health promotion intervention comparing email, short message service, and videoconferencing support for a healthy cohort: Randomized comparative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:e15592. doi: 10.2196/15592
Renfrew, M. E., Morton, D. P., Morton, J. K., Hinze, J. S., Przybylko, G., and Craig, B. A. (2020b). The influence of three modes of human support on attrition and adherence to a Web- and mobile app–based mental health promotion intervention in a nonclinical cohort: Randomized comparative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 22:e19945. doi: 10.2196/19945
Renfrew, M. E., Morton, D. P., Northcote, M., Morton, J. K., Hinze, J. S., and Przybylko, G. (2021). Participant perceptions of facilitators and barriers to adherence in a digital mental health intervention for a nonclinical cohort: Content analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e25358. doi: 10.2196/25358
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sarris, J., Logan, A. C., Akbaraly, T. N., Amminger, G. P., Balanzá-Martínez, V., Freeman, M. P., et al. (2015). Nutritional medicine as mainstream in psychiatry. Lancet Psychiatry 2, 271–274. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00051-0
Schueller, S. M., Tomasino, K. N., Lattie, E. G., and Mohr, D. C. (2016). Human support for behavioral intervention technologies for mental health: The efficiency model. Assoc. Comput. Machin. 21, 22. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Human+support+for+behavioral+intervention+technologies+for+mental+health%3A+The+efficiency+model&btnG=
Shim, M., Mahaffey, B., Bleidistel, M., and Gonzalez, A. (2017). A scoping review of human-support factors in the context of Internet-based psychological interventions (IPIs) for depression and anxiety disorders. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 57, 129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.003
Short, C. E., Vandelanotte, C., Dixon, M. W., Rosenkranz, R., Caperchione, C., Hooker, C., et al. (2014). Examining participant engagement in an information technology-based physical activity and nutrition intervention for men: the manup randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res. Protoc. 3:2776. doi: 10.2196/resprot.2776
Spijkerman, M., Pots, W. T. M., and Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2016). Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions in improving mental health: a review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 45, 102–114. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.009
Stratton, E., Lampit, A., Choi, I., Calvo, R. A., Harvey, S. B., and Glozier, N. (2017). Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for reducing mental health conditions in employees: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12:e0189904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189904
Titov, N., Dear, B., Staples, L., Terides, M., Karin, E., Sheehan, J., et al. (2015). Disorder-specific versus transdiagnostic and clinician-guided versus self-guided treatment for major depressive disorder and comorbid anxiety disorders: a randomized controlled trial. J. Anxiety Disord. 35, 88–102. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.08.002
Titov, N., Fogliati, V. J., Staples, L. G., Gandy, M., Johnston, L., Wootton, B., et al. (2016). Treating anxiety and depression in older adults: Randomised controlled trial comparing guided v. self-guided internet-delivered cognitive–behavioural therapy. BJPsych Open 2, 50–58. doi: 10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.002139
World Health Organization (2019). The WHO special initiative for mental health (2019-2023): Universal health coverage for mental health [Online]. World Health Organization. Available online at: https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/special_initiative_2019_2023/en/ (accessed 20, May 2021).
Yardley, L., Spring, B. J., Riper, H., Morrison, L. G., Crane, D. H., Curtis, K., et al. (2016). Understanding and promoting effective engagement with digital behavior change interventions. Am. J. Prev. Med. 51, 833–842. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.015
Zagorscak, P., Heinrich, M., Sommer, D., Wagner, B., and Knaevelsrud, C. (2018). Benefits of individualized feedback in internet-based interventions for depression: a randomized controlled trial. Psychother. Psychosom. 87, 32–45. doi: 10.1159/000481515
Zarski, A. C., Lehr, D., Berking, M., Riper, H., Cuijpers, P., and Ebert, D. D. (2016). Adherence to internet-based mobile-supported stress management: a pooled analysis of individual participant data from three randomized controlled trials. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(6). doi: 10.2196/jmir.4493
Keywords: digital mental health promotion, human support, human guidance, adherence, mental wellbeing, general population, interdisciplinary
Citation: Renfrew ME, Morton DP, Morton JK and Przybylko G (2021) The Influence of Human Support on the Effectiveness of Digital Mental Health Promotion Interventions for the General Population. Front. Psychol. 12:716106. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716106
Received: 28 May 2021; Accepted: 28 July 2021;
Published: 19 August 2021.
Edited by:Changiz Mohiyeddini, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, United States
Reviewed by:Emily G. Lattie, Northwestern University, United States
Rob Donovan, University of Western Australia, Australia
Copyright © 2021 Renfrew, Morton, Morton and Przybylko. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Melanie Elise Renfrew, firstname.lastname@example.org