Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Feb 6:25:e42864.
doi: 10.2196/42864.

Providing Human Support for the Use of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Meta-review

Alexandra Werntz  1 , Selen Amado  1 , Megyn Jasman  1 , Ariel Ervin  1 , Jean E Rhodes  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Providing Human Support for the Use of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Meta-review

Alexandra Werntz et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have been increasingly deployed to bridge gaps in mental health care, particularly given their promising efficacy. Nevertheless, attrition among DMHI users remains high. In response, human support has been studied as a means of improving retention to and outcomes of DMHIs. Although a growing number of studies and meta-analyses have investigated the effects of human support for DMHIs on mental health outcomes, systematic empirical evidence of its effectiveness across mental health domains remains scant.

Objective: We aimed to summarize the results of meta-analyses of human support versus no support for DMHI use across various outcome domains, participant samples, and support providers.

Methods: We conducted a systematic meta-review of meta-analyses, comparing the effects of human support with those of no support for DMHI use, with the goal of qualitatively summarizing data across various outcome domains, participant samples, and support providers. We used MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycINFO electronic databases. Articles were included if the study had a quantitative meta-analysis study design; the intervention targeted mental health symptoms and was delivered via a technology platform (excluding person-delivered interventions mediated through telehealth, text messages, or social media); the outcome variables included mental health symptoms such as anxiety, depression, stress, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, or a number of these symptoms together; and the study included quantitative comparisons of outcomes in which human support versus those when no or minimal human support was provided.

Results: The results of 31 meta-analyses (505 unique primary studies) were analyzed. The meta-analyses reported 45 effect sizes; almost half (n=22, 48%) of them showed that human-supported DMHIs were significantly more effective than unsupported DMHIs. A total of 9% (4/45) of effect sizes showed that unsupported DMHIs were significantly more effective. No clear patterns of results emerged regarding the efficacy of human support for the outcomes assessed (including anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, stress, and multiple outcomes). Human-supported DMHIs may be more effective than unsupported DMHIs for individuals with elevated mental health symptoms. There were no clear results regarding the type of training for those providing support.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the potential of human support in improving the effects of DMHIs. Specifically, evidence emerged for stronger effects of human support for individuals with greater symptom severity. There was considerable heterogeneity across meta-analyses in the level of detail regarding the nature of the interventions, population served, and support delivered, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding the circumstances under which human support is most effective. Future research should emphasize reporting detailed descriptions of sample and intervention characteristics and describe the mechanism through which they believe the coach will be most useful for the DMHI.

Keywords: digital mental health interventions; human support; supportive accountability; systematic meta-review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Selection of meta-analyses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Liverpool S, Mota CP, Sales CM, Čuš A, Carletto S, Hancheva C, Sousa S, Cerón SC, Moreno-Peral P, Pietrabissa G, Moltrecht B, Ulberg R, Ferreira N, Edbrooke-Childs J. Engaging children and young people in digital mental health interventions: systematic review of modes of delivery, facilitators, and barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 23;22(6):e16317. doi: 10.2196/16317. http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1742226 v22i6e16317 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. West R, Michie S. A Guide to Development and Evaluation of Digital Behaviour Change Interventions in Healthcare. Sutton, UK: Silverback Publishing; 2016.
    1. Rauschenberg C, Schick A, Hirjak D, Seidler A, Paetzold I, Apfelbacher C, Riedel-Heller SG, Reininghaus U. Evidence synthesis of digital interventions to mitigate the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public mental health: rapid meta-review. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 10;23(3):e23365. doi: 10.2196/23365. https://www.jmir.org/2021/3/e23365/ v23i3e23365 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Domhardt M, Geßlein H, von Rezori RE, Baumeister H. Internet- and mobile-based interventions for anxiety disorders: a meta-analytic review of intervention components. Depress Anxiety. 2019 Mar;36(3):213–24. doi: 10.1002/da.22860. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heber E, Ebert DD, Lehr D, Cuijpers P, Berking M, Nobis S, Riper H. The benefit of web- and computer-based interventions for stress: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Feb 17;19(2):e32. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5774. https://www.jmir.org/2017/2/e32/ v19i2e32 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types