Evidence on Technology-Based Psychological Interventions in Diagnosed Depression: Systematic Review

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.