Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38332030›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2024

Digital interventions to promote psychological resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sarah K Schäfer, Lisa von Boros, Lea M Schaubruch, Angela M Kunzler, Saskia Lindner, Friederike Koehler, Tabea Werner, Federico Zappalà, Isabella Helmreich, Michèle Wessa and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sarah K SchäferLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany. sarah.schaefer@lir-mainz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9885-3252
Lisa von BorosLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2261-9213
Lea M SchaubruchLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Angela M KunzlerLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Saskia LindnerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Friederike KoehlerLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Tabea WernerLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Federico ZappalàLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Isabella HelmreichLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Michèle WessaLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Klaus Lieb *Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.
Oliver Tüscher *Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

EC | European Regional Development Fund (Europski Fond za Regionalni Razvoj) 84009588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Societies are exposed to major challenges at an increasing pace. This underscores the need for preventive measures such as resilience promotion that should be available in time and without access barriers. Our systematic review summarizes evidence on digital resilience interventions, which have the potential to meet these demands. We searched five databases for randomized-controlled trials in non-clinical adult populations. Primary outcomes were mental distress, positive mental health, and resilience factors. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed to compare intervention and control groups at post-intervention and follow-up assessments. We identified 101 studies comprising 20,010 participants. Meta-analyses showed small favorable effects on mental distress, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.18], positive mental health, SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [0.13, 0.40], and resilience factors, SMD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.21, 0.41]. Among middle-aged samples, older age was associated with more beneficial effects at follow-up, and effects were smaller for active control groups. Effects were comparable to those of face-to-face interventions and underline the potential of digital resilience interventions to prepare for future challenges.

Identifiers

PMID38332030
PMCPMC10853230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.