No abstract

Abstract. This meta-review integrates the current meta-analysis literature on the efficacy of internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for mental disorders and somatic diseases in children and adolescents. Further, it summarizes the moderators of treatment effects in this age group. Using a systematic literature search of PsycINFO and MEDLINE/PubMed, we identified eight meta-analyses (N = 8,417) that met all inclusion criteria. Current meta-analytical evidence of IMIs exists for depression (range of standardized mean differences, SMDs = .16 to .76; 95 % CI: –.12 to 1.12; k = 3 meta-analyses), anxiety (SMDs = .30 to 1.4; 95 % CI: –.53 to 2.44; k = 5) and chronic pain (SMD = .41; 95 % CI: .07 to .74; k = 1) with predominantly nonactive control conditions (waiting-list; placebo). The effect size for IMIs across mental disorders reported in one meta-analysis is SMD = 1.27 (95 % CI: .96 to 1.59; k = 1), the effect size of IMIs for different somatic conditions is SMD = .49 (95 % CI: .33 to .64; k = 1). Moderators of treatment effects are age (k = 3), symptom severity (k = 1), and source of outcome assessment (k = 1). Quality ratings with the AMSTAR-2-checklist indicate acceptable methodological rigor of meta-analyses included. Taken together, this meta-review suggests that IMIs are efficacious in some health conditions in youths, with evidence existing primarily for depression and anxiety so far. The findings point to the potential of IMIs to augment evidence based mental healthcare for children and adolescents.

Background There is a strong stigma attached to mental disorders preventing those affected from getting psychological help. The consequences of stigma are worse for racial and/or ethnic minorities compared to racial and/or ethnic majorities since the former often experience other social adversities such as poverty and discrimination within policies and institutions. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the evidence on the impact of differences in mental illness stigma between racial minorities and majorities. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included cross-sectional studies comparing mental illness stigma between racial minorities and majorities. Systematic searches were conducted in the bibliographic databases of PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE until 20th December 2018. Outcomes were extracted from published reports, and meta-analyses, and meta-regression analyses were conducted in CMA software. Results After screening 2787 abstracts, 29 studies with 193,418 participants (N = 35,836 in racial minorities) were eligible for analyses. Racial minorities showed more stigma than racial majorities (g = 0.20 (95% CI: 0.12 ~ 0.27) for common mental disorders. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. Multivariate meta-regression analyses pointed to the possible moderating role of the number of studies with high risk of bias on the effect size. Racial minorities have more stigma for common mental disorders when compared with majorities. Limitations included moderate to high risk of bias, high heterogeneity, few studies in most comparisons, and the use of non-standardized outcome measures. Conclusions Mental illness stigma is higher among ethnic minorities than majorities. An important clinical implication of these findings would be to tailor anti-stigma strategies related with mental illnesses according to specific racial and/or ethnic backgrounds with the intention to improve mental health outreach.

Background Digital health interventions might extend service provisions for youth with chronic medical conditions (CC) and comorbid mental health symptoms. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for different psychological and disease-related outcomes in children and adolescents with CC. Method Studies were identified by systematic searches in CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed and PsycINFO, complemented by searches in reference lists of eligible studies and other reviews. We included studies, when they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of an IMI to control conditions in improving psychological and disease-related outcomes in youth (mean age ≤ 18 years) with CC. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed within a random-effects model, and Hedges' g (with 95% confidence intervals) was calculated as effect size measure. Primary outcomes were comorbid mental health symptoms (i.e., depression, anxiety and stress), as well as quality of life and self-efficacy. Results A total of 19 randomized controlled trials (2410 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. IMIs were associated with improvements in self-efficacy ( g = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.61; I 2 = 0) and combined disease-related outcomes ( g = −0.13; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.01 ; I 2 = 21). Meta-analyses on other outcomes were non-significant, and some pre-planned analyses were not feasible because of a shortage of studies. Conclusion The available evidence on IMIs for improving mental and health-related outcomes in youth with CC is limited. Our findings point to a rather small benefit and limited efficacy. Future research is needed, to comprehensively assess the potential of IMIs to extend collaborative care, and to identify factors contributing to improved user-centered interventions with better treatment outcomes.

QuestionDigital interventions based on cognitive–behavioural therapy (iCBT) is associated with reductions in suicidal ideation. However, fine-grained analyses of effects and potential effect-moderating variables are missing. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of iCBT on suicidal ideation, effect moderators, effects on suicide attempts and predictors of adherence.Study selection and analysisWe systematically searched CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Embase and PubMed for randomised controlled trials that investigated iCBT for suicidal ideation or behaviours. Participants reporting baseline suicidal ideation were eligible. We conducted a one-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Suicidal ideation was the primary outcome, analysed as three indices: severity of suicidal ideation, reliable changes and treatment response.FindingsWe included IPD from nine out of ten eligible trials (2037 participants). iCBT showed significant reductions of suicidal ideation compared with control conditions across all indices (severity: b=−0.247, 95% CI −0.322 to −0.173; reliable changes: b=0.633, 95% CI 0.408 to 0.859; treatment response: b=0.606, 95% CI 0.410 to 0.801). In iCBT, the rate of reliable improvement was 40.5% (controls: 27.3%); the deterioration rate was 2.8% (controls: 5.1%). No participant-level moderator effects were identified. The effects on treatment response were higher for trials with waitlist-controls compared with active controls. There were insufficient data on suicide attempts. Human support and female gender predicted treatment adherence. The main source of potential bias was missing outcome data.ConclusionsThe current evidence indicates that iCBT is effective in reducing suicidal ideation irrespective of age, gender and previous suicide attempts. Future studies should rigorously assess suicidal behaviour and drop-out reasons.

Background There is a strong stigma attached to mental disorders preventing those affected from getting psychological help. The consequences of stigma are worse for racial and/or ethnic minorities who often experience other social adversities such as poverty and discrimination within policies and institutions. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the evidence on the impact of differences in mental illness stigma between racial minorities and majorities.Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included cross-sectional studies comparing mental illness stigma between racial minorities and majorities. Systematic searches were conducted in the bibliographic databases of PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE until 20th December 2018. Outcomes were extracted from published reports, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted in CMA software.Results After screening 2,787 abstracts, 29 studies with 193,418 participants (N=35,836 in racial minorities) were eligible for analyses. Racial minorities showed more stigma than racial majorities (g=0.20 (95% CI: 0.12~0.27) for common mental disorders. Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. Multivariate meta-regression analyses pointed to the possible moderating role of the number of studies with high risk of bias on the effect size. Racial minorities have more stigma for common mental disorders when compared with majorities. Limitations included moderate to high risk of bias, high heterogeneity, few studies in most comparisons, and the use of non-standardized outcome measures.Conclusions An important clinical implication of these findings would be to tailor anti-stigma strategies according to specific racial and/or ethnic backgrounds with the intention to improve mental health outreach. These limitations suggest a need for more high quality research on stigma.

Introduction: Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) and their integration into routine psychotherapy (i.e., blended therapy) can offer a means of complementing psychotherapy in a flexible and resource optimized way.Objective: The present study will evaluate the non-inferiority, cost-effectiveness, and safety of two versions of integrated blended psychotherapy for depression and anxiety compared to standard cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).Methods: A three-armed multicenter cluster-randomized controlled non-inferiority trial will be conducted comparing two implementations of blended psychotherapy (PSYCHOnlineTHERAPYfix/flex) compared to CBT. Seventy-five outpatient psychotherapists with a CBT-license will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio. Each of them is asked to include 12 patients on average with depressive or anxiety disorders resulting in a total sample size of N = 900. All patients receive up to a maximum of 16 psychotherapy sessions, either as routine CBT or alternating with Online self-help sessions (fix: 8/8; flex: 0–16). Assessments will be conducted at patient study inclusion (pre-treatment) and 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks and 12 months post-inclusion. The primary outcome is depression and anxiety severity at 18 weeks post-inclusion (post-treatment) using the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety remission, treatment response, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, working alliance, psychotherapy adherence, and patient safety. Additionally, several potential moderators and mediators including patient characteristics and attitudes toward the interventions will be examined, complemented by ecological day-to-day digital behavior variables via passive smartphone sensing as part of an integrated smart-sensing sub-study. Data-analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis with additional per-protocol analyses. In addition, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted from a societal and a public health care perspective. Additionally, qualitative interviews on acceptance, feasibility, and optimization potential will be conducted and analyzed.Discussion: PSYCHOnlineTHERAPY will provide evidence on blended psychotherapy in one of the largest ever conducted psychotherapy trials. If shown to be non-inferior and cost-effective, PSYCHOnlineTHERAPY has the potential to innovate psychotherapy in the near future by extending the ways of conducting psychotherapy. The rigorous health care services approach will facilitate a timely implementation of blended psychotherapy into standard care.Trial Registration: The trial is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00023973; date of registration: December 28th 2020).

No abstract