The high global prevalence of depression, together with the recent acceleration of remote care owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted increased interest in the efficacy of digital interventions for the treatment of depression. We provide a summary of the latest evidence base for digital interventions in the treatment of depression based on the largest study sample to date. A systematic literature search identified 83 studies (N = 15,530) that randomly allocated participants to a digital intervention for depression versus an active or inactive control condition. Overall heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 84%). Using a random-effects multilevel metaregression model, we found a significant medium overall effect size of digital interventions compared with all control conditions (g = .52). Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences between interventions and different control conditions (WLC: g = .70; attention: g = .36; TAU: g = .31), significantly higher effect sizes in interventions that involved human therapeutic guidance (g = .63) compared with self-help interventions (g = .34), and significantly lower effect sizes for effectiveness trials (g = .30) compared with efficacy trials (g = .59). We found no significant difference in outcomes between smartphone-based apps and computer- and Internet-based interventions and no significant difference between human-guided digital interventions and face-to-face psychotherapy for depression, although the number of studies in both comparisons was low. Findings from the current meta-analysis provide evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness of digital interventions for the treatment of depression for a variety of populations. However, reported effect sizes may be exaggerated because of publication bias, and compliance with digital interventions outside of highly controlled settings remains a significant challenge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Background: Although there is evidence for the efficacy of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), the generalizability of results to routine care is limited. Objective: This study systematically reviews effectiveness studies of guided iCBT interventions for the treatment of depression or anxiety. Methods: The acceptability (uptake, participants’ characteristics, adherence, and satisfaction), effectiveness, and negative effects (deterioration) of nonrandomized pre-post designs conducted under routine care conditions were synthesized using systematic review and meta-analytic approaches. Results: A total of 19 studies including 30 groups were included in the analysis. Despite high heterogeneity, individual effect sizes of investigated studies indicate clinically relevant changes, with effect sizes ranging from Hedges’ g=0.42-1.88, with a pooled effect of 1.78 for depression and 0.94 for anxiety studies. Uptake, participants’ characteristics, adherence, and satisfaction indicate a moderate to high acceptability of the interventions. The average deterioration across studies was 2.9%. Conclusions: This study provides evidence supporting the acceptability and effectiveness of guided iCBT for the treatment of depression and anxiety in routine care. Given the high heterogeneity between interventions and contexts, health care providers should select interventions that have been proven in randomized controlled clinical trials. The successful application of iCBT may be an effective way of increasing health care in multiple contexts.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet