The Effects of Nonclinician Guidance on Effectiveness and Process Outcomes in Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (Preprint)

Abstract

BACKGROUND Digital mental health interventions are increasingly prevalent in the current context of rapidly evolving technology, and research indicates that they yield effectiveness outcomes comparable to in-person treatment. Integrating professionals (i.e. psychologists, physicians) into digital mental health interventions has been common, and the inclusion of guidance within programs can increase adherence to interventions. However, employing professionals to enhance mental health programs may undermine the scalability of digital interventions. Therefore, delegating guidance tasks to paraprofessionals (peer supporters, technicians, lay counsellors, or other non-clinicians) can help reduce costs and increase accessibility. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of non-clinician guided digital mental health interventions. METHODS Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PSYCInfo) were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2020 examining digital mental health interventions. Three journals focused on digital intervention were also hand searched and grey literature was searched using ProQuest and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL). Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. Data were collected on effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes, and meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and adherence outcomes. Non-clinician guided interventions were compared with treatment as usual, clinician-guided interventions, and unguided interventions. RESULTS Thirteen studies qualified for inclusion. Results indicate that non-clinician guided interventions yielded higher post-treatment effectiveness outcomes when compared to conditions involving control programs (e.g. online psychoeducation, monitored attention control) or waitlist controls (k=7, Hedges g=-0.73 (95% CI -1.08 to -0.38)). There are significant differences between non-clinician guided interventions and unguided interventions as well (k=6, Hedges g=-0.17 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.11)). In addition, non-clinician guided interventions did not differ in effectiveness from clinician-guided interventions (k=3, Hedges g=0.08 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.17)). These results suggest that guided digital mental health interventions are helpful to improve mental health outcomes regardless of the qualification, and that the presence of a non-clinician guide improves effectiveness outcomes more than no guidance. Non-clinician guided interventions did not yield significantly different effects on adherence outcomes when compared with unguided interventions (k=3, OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.51 to 4.92)), although a general trend of improved adherence was observed within non-clinician guided interventions. CONCLUSIONS Integrating paraprofessionals and non-clinicians appear to improve outcomes of digital mental health interventions, and may also enhance adherence outcomes (though the trend was nonsignificant). Further research should focus on the specific types of tasks these paraprofessionals can successfully provide (i.e. psychosocial support, therapeutic alliance, technical augmentation) and their associated outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL The protocol is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020191226).