Digital Psychotherapies for Adults Experiencing Depressive Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

• DOI: 10.2196/preprints.55500
• Publication Date: 2023-12-14T19:03:43Z
• Authors: Joanna Omylinska ...; Supritha Aithal; Shaun Liverpool; Rebecca Clark; Zoe Moula; January Wood; Laura Viliardos; Edgar Rodríguez-D...; Fleur Farish-Edwards; Ailsa Parsons; Mia Eisenstadt; Marcus Bull; Linda Dubrow-Mars...; Scott Thurston; Vicky Karkou
• Keywords: Depression; Preprint; Grey Literature

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Depression affects 5% of adults and it is a major cause disability worldwide. Digital psychotherapies offer an accessible solution addressing this issue. This systematic review examines spectrum digital for depression, considering both their effectiveness user perspectives. </sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> focuses on identifying (1) the most common types psychotherapies, (2) clients’ practitioners’ perspectives helpful unhelpful aspects, (3) with depression. <title>METHODS</title> A mixed methods protocol was developed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search strategy used Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design (PICOS) framework covering 2010 to 2024 7 databases were searched. Overall, 13 authors extracted data, all aspects checked by &amp;gt;1 reviewer minimize biases. Quality appraisal conducted studies. therapists’ perceptions factors identified qualitative narrative synthesis. Meta-analyses depression outcomes standardized mean difference (calculated as Hedges &lt;i&gt;g&lt;/i&gt;) postintervention change between psychotherapy control groups. <title>RESULTS</title> Of 3303 initial records, 186 records (5.63%; 160 studies) included in review. Quantitative studies (131/160, 81.8%) randomized controlled trial design (88/160, 55%) common. overall sample size 70,720 participants (female: n=51,677, 73.07%; male: n=16,779, 23.73%). interventions “stand-alone” or non–human contact (58/160, 36.2%), “human contact” (11/160, 6.8%), “blended” including stand-alone human (91/160, 56.8%). What clients practitioners perceived support motivation accessibility, explanation task reminders, resources, learning skills manage symptoms. problems usability lack direction explanation. total 80 16,072 meta-analysis, revealing moderate large effect favor (Hedges &lt;i&gt;g&lt;/i&gt;=–0.61, 95% CI –0.75 –0.47; &lt;i&gt;Z&lt;/i&gt;=–8.58; &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;&amp;lt;.001). Subgroup analyses different intervention delivery formats session frequency did not have statistically significant results (&lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.48 &lt;i&gt;P&lt;/i&gt;=.97, respectively). However, blended approaches revealed &lt;i&gt;g&lt;/i&gt;=–0.793), while involving &lt;i&gt;g&lt;/i&gt;=–0.42) no &lt;i&gt;g&lt;/i&gt;=–0.40) had slightly smaller sizes. <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> found be effective regardless format frequency. Blended larger than those contact. especially diverse ethnic groups young women. Future research should focus understanding sources heterogeneity based population characteristics. <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> PROSPERO CRD42021238462; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=238462