Computerized and, more recently, Internet-based treatments for depression have been developed and tested in controlled trials. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize the effects of these treatments and investigate characteristics of studies that may be related to the effects. In particular, the authors were interested in the role of personal support when completing a computerized treatment. Following a literature search and coding, the authors included 12 studies, with a total of 2446 participants. Ten of the 12 studies were delivered via the Internet. The mean effect size of the 15 comparisons between Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments vs. control groups at posttest was d = 0.41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.54). However, this estimate was moderated by a significant difference between supported (d = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) and unsupported (d = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.14-0.35) treatments. The authors conclude that although more studies are needed, Internet and other computerized treatments hold promise as potentially evidence-based treatments of depression.

During the last two decades, Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) has been tested in hundreds of randomized controlled trials, often with promising results. However, the control groups were often waitlisted, care-as-usual or attention control. Hence, little is known about the relative efficacy of ICBT as compared to face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 1418 participants, guided ICBT for psychiatric and somatic conditions were directly compared to face-to-face CBT within the same trial. Out of the 2078 articles screened, a total of 20 studies met all inclusion criteria. Results showed a pooled effect size at post-treatment of Hedges g = .05 (95% CI, −.09 to .20), indicating that ICBT and face-to-face treatment produced equivalent overall effects. Study quality did not affect outcomes. While the overall results indicate equivalence, there have been few studies of the individual psychiatric and somatic conditions so far, and for the majority, guided ICBT has not been compared against face-to-face treatment. Thus, more research, preferably with larger sample sizes, is needed to establish the general equivalence of the two treatment formats.

Several Internet interventions have been developed and tested for common mental disorders, and the evidence to date shows that these treatments often result in similar outcomes as in face‐to‐face psychotherapy and that they are cost‐effective. In this paper, we first review the pros and cons of how participants in Internet treatment trials have been recruited. We then comment on the assessment procedures often involved in Internet interventions and conclude that, while online questionnaires yield robust results, diagnoses cannot be determined without any contact with the patient. We then review the role of the therapist and conclude that, although treatments including guidance seem to lead to better outcomes than unguided treatments, this guidance can be mainly practical and supportive rather than explicitly therapeutic in orientation. Then we briefly describe the advantages and disadvantages of treatments for mood and anxiety disorders and comment on ways to handle comorbidity often associated with these disorders. Finally we discuss challenges when disseminating Internet interventions. In conclusion, there is now a large body of evidence suggesting that Internet interventions work. Several research questions remain open, including how Internet interventions can be blended with traditional forms of care.

Objective: No recent meta-analysis has examined the effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for adult depression. We decided to conduct such an updated meta-analysis. Methods: Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane library). We included studies examining the effects of CBT, compared with control groups, other psychotherapies, and pharmacotherapy. Results: A total of 115 studies met inclusion criteria. The mean effect size (ES) of 94 comparisons from 75 studies of CBT and control groups was Hedges g = 0.71 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.79), which corresponds with a number needed to treat of 2.6. However, this may be an overestimation of the true ES as we found strong indications for publication bias (ES after adjustment for bias was g = 0.53), and because the ES of higher-quality studies was significantly lower ( g = 0.53) than for lower-quality studies ( g = 0.90). The difference between high- and low-quality studies remained significant after adjustment for other study characteristics in a multivariate meta-regression analysis. We did not find any indication that CBT was more or less effective than other psychotherapies or pharmacotherapy. Combined treatment was significantly more effective than pharmacotherapy alone ( g = 0.49). Conclusions: There is no doubt that CBT is an effective treatment for adult depression, although the effects may have been overestimated until now. CBT is also the most studied psychotherapy for depression, and thus has the greatest weight of evidence. However, other treatments approach its overall efficacy.