Introduction Although many effective treatment options exist, depression is still undertreated indicating gaps in the healthcare system. The complementary provision of mental healthcare through technologies (eg, computer, smartphone) has the potential to fill treatment gaps and to overcome access barriers to mental healthcare. Until now, no systematic review integrates the evidence on different technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) concerning their effectiveness and acceptance in different clinical phases of depression management (bridging waiting periods, acute treatment and aftercare). The aim of this project is to structure evidence on TBIs regarding different phases of depression management, and to determine effectiveness and acceptance for each clinical phase considering both active (eg, face-to-face treatment) and inactive (eg, waitlist) controls as comparators. Methods and analysis We will include studies on adults with a formal diagnosis of unipolar depression. Treatments delivered by technologies based on scientific psychological theories will be considered as experimental interventions. The primary effectiveness outcome will be depressive symptoms at study endpoint measured by symptom severity rating scales, and the primary acceptance outcome will be dropping out of the study due to any reason. We will consider only randomised controlled trials, which will be identified by key database searches (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL) complemented through searches in clinical trial registries (eg, clinicaltrials.gov) and grey literature searches (eg, Open Grey). Two review authors will independently conduct study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies (using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias). Meta-analyses applying random-effect models as well as subgroup, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this study, as we conduct research on secondary data. We will disseminate results via peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations on conferences and via plain language summaries. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016050413; Pre-results.
Background Evidence on technology-based psychological interventions (TBIs) for the treatment of depression is rapidly growing and covers a broad scope of research. Despite extensive research in this field, guideline recommendations are still limited to the general effectiveness of TBIs. Objective This study aims to structure evidence on TBIs by considering different application areas (eg, TBIs for acute treatment and their implementation in health care, such as stand-alone interventions) and treatment characteristics (eg, therapeutic rationale of TBIs) to provide a comprehensive evidence base and to identify research gaps in TBIs for diagnosed depression. Moreover, the reporting of negative events in the included studies is investigated in this review to enable subsequent safety assessment of the TBIs. Methods Randomized controlled trials on adults diagnosed with unipolar depression receiving any kind of psychotherapeutic treatment, which was at least partly delivered by a technical medium, were eligible for inclusion in our preregistered systematic review. We searched for trials in CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; until August 2020), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL; until the end of January 2018), clinical trial registers, and sources of gray literature (until the end of January 2019). Study selection and data extraction were conducted by 2 review authors independently. Results Database searches resulted in 15,546 records, of which 241 publications were included, representing 83 completed studies and 60 studies awaiting classification (ie, preregistered studies, study protocols). Almost all completed studies (78/83, 94%) addressed the acute treatment phase, being largely either implemented as stand-alone interventions (66/83, 80%) or blended treatment approaches (12/83, 14%). Studies on TBIs for aftercare (4/83, 5%) and for bridging waiting periods (1/83, 1%) were scarce. Most TBI study arms (n=107) were guided (59/107, 55.1%), delivered via the internet (80/107, 74.8%), and based on cognitive behavioral treatment approaches (88/107, 79.4%). Almost all studies (77/83, 93%) reported information on negative events, considering dropouts from treatment as a negative event. However, reports on negative events were heterogeneous and largely unsystematic. Conclusions Research has given little attention to studies evaluating TBIs for aftercare and for bridging waiting periods in people with depression, even though TBIs are seen as highly promising in these application areas; thus, high quality studies are urgently needed. In addition, the variety of therapeutic rationales on TBIs has barely been represented by identified studies hindering the consideration of patient preferences when planning treatment. Finally, future studies should use specific guidelines to systematically assess and report negative events. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028042
Background: There is growing evidence that technology-based interventions (TBIs) are effective for the treatment of depression. As TBIs are gaining acceptance, a question arises whether good therapeutic alliance, considered a key aspect of psychotherapy, can be established without or with minimal face-to-face contact or rather changes if blended concepts are applied. While therapeutic alliance has been studied extensively in the context of face-to-face therapy, only few studies have reviewed evidence on alliance ratings in TBIs. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine therapeutic alliance in technology-based psychological interventions for the treatment of depression. Methods: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, clinical trial registers, and sources of grey literature for randomized controlled trials on TBIs in the treatment of adults with unipolar depression. All publications were selected according to prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results: A total of eight out of 98 studies (9.5%) included in the review on TBIs for depression considered therapeutic alliance as part of their evaluation. The available data covered eight different treatment conditions, including four stand-alone treatments (face-to-face psychotherapy, email, telephone, and internet program) and four combined treatments (face-to-face psychotherapy plus a smartphone app and an internet program combined with face-to-face psychotherapy, treatment as usual, or email/telephone). On average, patients rated the alliance positively across all groups. Importantly, no relevant group differences regarding therapeutic alliance sum scores were found in any of the studies. Five studies investigated the relationship between patients’ alliance ratings and treatment outcome, revealing mixed results. Conclusions: Our results suggest that it is possible to establish a positive therapeutic alliance across a variety of different TBIs for depression, but this is based on a small number of studies. Future research needs to determine on what basis therapeutic alliance is formed in settings that do not allow for additional nonverbal cues, perhaps with adapted instruments to measure therapeutic alliance. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42016050413; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016050413)