While smartphone usage is ubiquitous, and the app market for smartphone apps targeted at mental health is growing rapidly, the evidence of standalone apps for treating mental health symptoms is still unclear. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of standalone smartphone apps for mental health. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in February 2018 on randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of standalone apps for mental health in adults with heightened symptom severity, compared to a control group. A random-effects model was employed. When insufficient comparisons were available, data was presented in a narrative synthesis. Outcomes included assessments of mental health disorder symptom severity specifically targeted at by the app. In total, 5945 records were identified and 165 full-text articles were screened for inclusion by two independent researchers. Nineteen trials with 3681 participants were included in the analysis: depression (k = 6), anxiety (k = 4), substance use (k = 5), self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (k = 4), PTSD (k = 2), and sleep problems (k = 2). Effects on depression (Hedges’ g = 0.33, 95%CI 0.10–0.57, P = 0.005, NNT = 5.43, I2 = 59%) and on smoking behavior (g = 0.39, 95%CI 0.21–0.57, NNT = 4.59, P ≤ 0.001, I2 = 0%) were significant. No significant pooled effects were found for anxiety, suicidal ideation, self-injury, or alcohol use (g = −0.14 to 0.18). Effect sizes for single trials ranged from g = −0.05 to 0.14 for PTSD and g = 0.72 to 0.84 for insomnia. Although some trials showed potential of apps targeting mental health symptoms, using smartphone apps as standalone psychological interventions cannot be recommended based on the current level of evidence.

Background Major depressive disorder (MDD) in college students is associated with substantial burden. Aims To assess 1‐year incidence of MDD among incoming freshmen and predictors of MDD‐incidence in a representative sample of students. Method Prospective cohort study of first‐year college students (baseline: n = 2,519, 1‐year follow‐up: n = 958) Results The incidence of MDD within the first year of college was 6.9% (SE = 0.8). The most important individual‐level predictors of onset were prior suicide plans and/or attempts (OR = 9.5). The strongest population‐level baseline predictors were history of childhood–adolescent trauma, stressful experience in the past 12 months, parental psychopathology, and other 12‐month mental disorder. Multivariate cross‐validated prediction (cross‐validated AUC = 0.73) suggest that 36.1% of incident MDD cases in a replication sample would occur among the 10% of students at highest predicted risk (24.5% predicted incidence in this highest‐risk subgroup). Conclusions Screening at college entrance is a promising strategy to identify students at risk of MDD onset, which may improve the development and deployment of targeted preventive interventions.

Introduction: Evidence on effects of Internet-based interventions to treat subthreshold depression (sD) and prevent the onset of major depression (MDD) is inconsistent. Objective: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to determine differences between intervention and control groups (IG, CG) in depressive symptom severity (DSS), treatment response, close to symptom-free status, symptom deterioration and MDD onset as well as moderators of intervention outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches via PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library. Multilevel regression analyses were used to examine efficacy and moderators. Results: Seven trials (2,186 participants) were included. The IG was superior in DSS at all measurement points (posttreatment: 6–12 weeks; Hedges’ g = 0.39 [95% CI: 0.25–0.53]; follow-up 1: 3–6 months; g = 0.30 [95% CI: 0.15–0.45]; follow-up 2: 12 months, g = 0.27 [95% CI: 0.07–0.47], compared with the CG. Significantly more participants in the IG than in the CG reached response and close to symptom-free status at all measurement points. A significant difference in symptom deterioration between the groups was found at the posttreatment assessment and follow-up 2. Incidence rates for MDD onset within 12 months were lower in the IG (19%) than in the CG (26%). Higher initial DSS and older age were identified as moderators of intervention effect on DSS. Conclusions: Our findings provide evidence for Internet-based interventions to be a suitable low-threshold intervention to treat individuals with sD and to reduce the incidence of MDD. This might be particularly true for older people with a substantial symptom burden.

BackgroundDepression and anxiety are highly prevalent and often co-occur. Several studies indicate the potential of disorder-specific psychological interventions for the prevention of each of these disorders. To treat comorbidity, transdiagnostic treatment concepts seem to be a promising approach, however, evidence for transdiagnostic concepts of prevention remains inconclusive. Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) may be an effective means to deliver psychological interventions on a large scale for the prevention of common mental disorders (CMDs) such as depression and anxiety. IMIs have been shown to be effective in treating CMDs, e.g. in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety. However, there is a lack of studies examining the efficacy of interventions reducing the incidence of CMDs. Moreover, the comparative cost-effectiveness of guided versus unguided IMIs for the prevention of depression and anxiety has not been studied yet. Hence, this study aims at investigating the (cost-) effectiveness of guided and unguided internet- and mobile-based transdiagnostic individually tailored indicated prevention of depression and anxiety.MethodsA multi-country three-armed randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare a guided and unguided intervention to treatment as usual (TAU). Both active conditions are based on the same intervention, ICare Prevent, and differ only with regard to guidance format. Altogether, 954 individuals with subclinical symptoms of depression (CES-D ≥ 16) and anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 5) who do not have a full-blown disorder will be recruited in Germany, Switzerland, Spain and the Netherlands, and randomized to one of three conditions (guided intervention, unguided intervention, or TAU). The TAU arm will receive access to the training after a 12-month waiting period. The primary outcome will be time to CMD onset (any depression/anxiety disorder) within a follow-up period of 12 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes will include disorder-specific symptom severity (depression/anxiety) assessed by diagnostic raters blinded to intervention condition at post-intervention, self-reports, acceptability, health related quality of life, and psychosocial variables associated with developing a CMD. Assessments will take place at baseline, mid-intervention (5 weeks into the intervention), post-intervention (8 weeks after randomization) and follow-up (6 and 12 months after randomization). Data will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis and per protocol. Cost-effectiveness will be evaluated from a public health and a societal perspective, including both direct and indirect costs.DiscussionThe present study will further enhance the evidence-base for transdiagnostic preventive interventions and provide valuable information about optimal trade-off between treatment outcome and costs.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Registration (DRKS - http://www.drks.de/drks_web/): DRKS00011099.

BackgroundAlthough internet-based and mobile-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) may be a promising strategy to reach employees suffering from high chronic stress, it remains unknown whether participants with high symptom severity of depression or anxiety also benefit from iSMIs or should be excluded.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of iSMIs in subgroups with high symptom severity and to test whether baseline symptom severity moderates treatment outcome.MethodsData from three randomized controlled trials (N=791) were pooled to identify effect modifiers and to evaluate efficacy in subgroups with different levels of initial symptom severity. The outcomes perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale, PSS), depression severity (Center for Epidemiological Depression Scale, CES-D), and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS) symptom severity were assessed at baseline, 7-week postassessment, and 6-month follow-up. Potential moderators were tested in predicting differences in the change of outcome in multiple moderation analyses. Simple slope analyses evaluated efficacy of the iSMI comparing the intervention group with the waitlist control group in subgroups with low, moderate, and severe initial symptomology based on means and SDs of the study population. In addition, subgroups with clinical values of depression (CES-D≥16) and anxiety (HADS≥8) at baseline were explored, and response rates (RRs; 50% symptom reduction) and symptom-free (SF) status (CES-D<16, HADS<8) were reported.ResultsIndividuals with high stress (PSS≥30), depression (CES-D≥33), anxiety (HADS≥15), and emotional exhaustion (MBI≥5.6) benefited significantly from the intervention with great reductions of stress (dpost=0.86-1.16, dFU=0.93-1.35), depression (dpost=0.69-1.08, dFU=0.91-1.19), and anxiety (dpost=0.79-1.19, dFU=1.06-1.21), and effects were sustained at 6-month follow-up. Symptom severity moderated treatment outcomes, as individuals with higher symptom severity at baseline benefited significantly more from the intervention than individuals with lower symptom severity. Furthermore, 82.9% (656/791) of individuals had clinical depression values at baseline, of which significantly more individuals in the intervention group reached at least 50% symptom reduction or fell under clinical cut-off (RR: 29.2%, 93/318; SF: 39.6%, 126/318) compared with the waitlist control group (RR: 8.0%, 27/338; SF: 18.6%, 63/338) at postassessment. Significantly more individuals with clinical anxiety values at baseline (HADS≥8, 85.3%, 675/791) in the intervention group achieved at least 50% symptom reduction or fell under clinical cut-off (RR: 27.7%, 94/339; SF: 39.8%, 135/339) compared with the WLC (RR: 4.8%, 16/336; SF: 15.5%, 52/336).ConclusionsHighly burdened individuals benefit greatly from iSMIs and therefore should not be excluded from participation. Stress management may be a valid entry point to reach highly burdened individuals who otherwise may not seek treatment.Trial Registration1) German Clinical Trials Register DRKS0000...