Impact Factor 3.161 | CiteScore 3.13
More on impact ›

Systematic Review ARTICLE Provisionally accepted The full-text will be published soon. Notify me

Front. Psychiatry | doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00759

What works and what doesn't? A systematic review of digital mental health interventions for depression and anxiety in young people

 Sandra Garrido1, 2*, Christopher Millington1, Daniel Cheers3, Katherine Boydell4, 5,  Emery Schubert5, Tanya Meade6 and Quang V. Nguyen6
  • 1The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Australia
  • 2Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Australia
  • 3Community Health, New South Wales Department of Health, Australia
  • 4Black Dog Institute, Australia
  • 5University of New South Wales, Australia
  • 6Western Sydney University, Australia

Background
A major challenge in providing mental health interventions for young people is making such interventions accessible and appealing to those most in need. Online and app-based forms of therapy for mental health are burgeoning. It is therefore crucial to identify features that are most effective and engaging for young users.
Objectives
This study reports a systematic review and meta-analysis of digital mental health interventions and their effectiveness in addressing anxiety and depression in young people, and to determine factors that relate to outcomes, adherence and engagement with such interventions.
Methods
A mixed methods approach was taken, including a meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials that compared use of a digital intervention for depression in young people to a no-intervention control group, and 6 comparing the intervention to an active control condition. A thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of 41 studies was also performed.
Results
The pooled effect size of digital mental health interventions on depression in comparison to a no-intervention control was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55), while the pooled effect size of studies comparing an intervention group to an active control was low (Cohen’s d = 0.14, 95% CI -.04 to 0.31). Pooled effect sizes were higher when supervision was involved (studies with no-intervention controls: Cohen’s d = 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80; studies with active control: Cohen’s d = 0.49, 95% CI -0.11, 1.01). Engagement and adherence rates were low. Qualitative analysis revealed that users liked interventions with a game-like feel and relatable, interactive content. Educational materials were perceived as boring, and users were put off by non-appealing interfaces and technical glitches.
Conclusions
Digital interventions work better than no intervention to improve depression in young people when results of different studies are pooled together. However, these interventions may only be of clinical significance when use is highly supervised. Digital interventions do not work better than active alternatives regardless of the level of support. Future interventions need to move beyond the use of digital educational materials, considering other ways to attract and engage young people and to ensure relevance and appeal.

Keywords: Depression, Anxiety, Mental Health, digital health interventions, eHealth, Systematic review (sr)

Received: 07 Mar 2019; Accepted: 20 Sep 2019.

Copyright: © 2019 Garrido, Millington, Cheers, Boydell, Schubert, Meade and Nguyen. 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: Dr. Sandra Garrido, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia, s.garrido@westernsydney.edu.au