6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Mediators and mechanisms of change in internet- and mobile-based interventions for depression: A systematic review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d6020178e156">The efficacy of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for depression in adults is well established. Yet, comprehensive knowledge on the mediators responsible for therapeutic change in these interventions is pending. Therefore, we conducted the first systematic review on mediators in IMIs for depression, investigating mechanisms of change in interventions with different theoretical backgrounds and delivery modes (PROSPERO CRD42019130301). Two independent reviewers screened references from five databases (i.e., Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO and ICTRP), selected studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible studies. We included 26 RCTs on mediators in IMIs for depression (6820 participants), rated their risk of bias and adherence to methodological quality criteria for psychotherapy process research. Primary studies examined 64 mediators, with cognitive variables (e.g., perceived control, rumination or interpretation bias) being the largest group of both examined (m = 28) and significant mediators (m = 22); followed by a range of other mediators, including mindfulness, acceptance and behavioral activation. Our findings might contribute to the empirically-informed advancement of interventions and mental health care practices, enabling optimized treatment outcomes for patients with depression. Furthermore, we discuss implications for future research and provide methodological recommendations for forthcoming mediation studies with more pertinent designs, allowing for inferences with higher causal specificity. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references136

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population

              L Radloff (1977)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Psychology Review
                Clinical Psychology Review
                Elsevier BV
                02727358
                February 2021
                February 2021
                : 83
                : 101953
                Article
                10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101953
                33422841
                e1ae0ebb-6273-460e-87ba-1b35a6748e0c
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article