During the last two decades, Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) has been tested in hundreds of randomized controlled trials, often with promising results. However, the control groups were often waitlisted, care-as-usual or attention control. Hence, little is known about the relative efficacy of ICBT as compared to face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 1418 participants, guided ICBT for psychiatric and somatic conditions were directly compared to face-to-face CBT within the same trial. Out of the 2078 articles screened, a total of 20 studies met all inclusion criteria. Results showed a pooled effect size at post-treatment of Hedges g = .05 (95% CI, -.09 to .20), indicating that ICBT and face-to-face treatment produced equivalent overall effects. Study quality did not affect outcomes. While the overall results indicate equivalence, there have been few studies of the individual psychiatric and somatic conditions so far, and for the majority, guided ICBT has not been compared against face-to-face treatment. Thus, more research, preferably with larger sample sizes, is needed to establish the general equivalence of the two treatment formats.

Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) has been tested in many research trials, but to a lesser extent directly compared to faceto-face delivered cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in which guided ICBT was directly compared to face-to-face CBT. Studies on psychiatric and somatic conditions were included. Systematic searches resulted in 13 studies (total N51053) that met all criteria and were included in the review. There were three studies on social anxiety disorder, three on panic disorder, two on depressive symptoms, two on body dissatisfaction, one on tinnitus, one on male sexual dysfunction, and one on spider phobia. Face-to-face CBT was either in the individual format (n56) or in the group format (n57). We also assessed quality and risk of bias. Results showed a pooled effect size (Hedges' g) at post-treatment of 20.01 (95% CI: 20.13 to 0.12), indicating that guided ICBT and face-to-face treatment produce equivalent overall effects. Study quality did not affect outcomes. While the overall results indicate equivalence, there are still few studies for each psychiatric and somatic condition and many conditions for which guided ICBT has not been compared to face-to-face treatment. Thus, more research is needed to establish equivalence of the two treatment formats.

Although impressive progress has been made toward developing empirically-supported psychological treatments, the reality remains that a significant proportion of people with mental health problems do not receive these treatments. Finding ways to reduce this treatment gap is crucial. Since app-supported smartphone interventions are touted as a possible solution, access to up-to-date guidance around the evidence base and clinical utility of these interventions is needed. We conducted a meta-analysis of 66 randomized controlled trials of app-supported smartphone interventions for mental health problems. Smartphone interventions significantly outperformed control conditions in improving depressive (g=0.28, n=54) and generalized anxiety (g=0.30, n=39) symptoms, stress levels (g=0.35, n=27), quality of life (g=0.35, n=43), general psychiatric distress (g=0.40, n=12), social anxiety symptoms (g=0.58, n=6), and positive affect (g=0.44, n=6), with most effects being robust even after adjusting for various possible biasing factors (type of control condition, risk of bias rating). Smartphone interventions conferred no significant benefit over control conditions on panic symptoms (g=-0.05, n=3), post-traumatic stress symptoms (g=0.18, n=4), and negative affect (g=-0.08, n=5). Studies that delivered a cognitive behavior therapy (CBT)-based app and offered professional guidance and reminders to engage produced larger effects on multiple outcomes. Smartphone interventions did not differ significantly from active interventions (face-to-face, computerized treatment), although the number of studies was low (n≤13). The efficacy of app-supported smartphone interventions for common mental health problems was thus confirmed. Although mental health apps are not intended to replace professional clinical services, the present findings highlight the potential of apps to serve as a cost-effective, easily accessible, and low intensity intervention for those who cannot receive standard psychological treatment.

No abstract