ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2024
We Have Spent Time, Money, and Effort Making Self-Help Digital Mental Health Interventions: Is Anyone Going to Come to the Party?
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urologists' Estimation of Online Support Group Utilization Behavior of Their Patients With Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Germany: Predefined Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Comprehensive Model for Mental health Access and service use (CoMMA): A process model for technology-enhanced mental healthcare.Internet interventions · 2026Review
- An Integrated Multilevel Mental Health Support System for University Students: 4-Year Longitudinal Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Observational
- Single-item measures in digital mental healthcare: a mini narrative review of challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Digital Therapeutics and Blended Care in Major Depressive Disorder: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Capacity to Invest Effort as a Predictor of Preference for Digital Mental Health Interventions Over Psychotherapy: Cross-Sectional Study Using an Ecological Digital Screening Tool.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A Crowdsourced Megastudy of 12 Digital Single-Session Interventions for Depression in American Adults.Research square · 2025Article
- A Human-Centered Approach for a Student Mental Health and Well-Being Mobile App: Protocol for Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Teen Perspectives on Integrating Digital Mental Health Programs for Teens Into Public Libraries ("I Was Always at the Library"): Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although efficacious psychotherapies exist, a limited number of mental health care providers and significant demand make their accessibility a fundamental problem. Clinical researchers, funders, and investors alike have converged on self-help digital mental health interventions (self-help DMHIs) as a low-cost, low-burden, and broadly scalable solution to the global mental health burden. Consequently, exorbitant financial and time-based resources have been invested in developing, testing, and disseminating these interventions. However, the public's assumed desirability for self-help DMHIs by experts has largely proceeded without question. This commentary critically evaluates whether self-help DMHIs can, and will, reach their purported potential as a solution to the public burden of mental illness, with an emphasis on evaluating their real-world desirability. Our review finds that self-help DMHIs are often perceived as less desirable and credible than in-person treatments, with lower usage rates and, perhaps accordingly, clinical trials testing self-help DMHIs suffering from widespread recruitment challenges. We highlight two fundamental challenges that may be interfering with the desirability of, and engagement in, self-help DMHIs: (1) difficulty competing with technology companies that have advantages in resources, marketing, and user experience design (but may not be delivering evidence-based interventions) and (2) difficulty retaining (vs initially attracting) users. We discuss a range of potential solutions, including highlighting self-help DMHIs in public mental health awareness campaigns; public education about evidence-based interventions that can guide consumers to appropriate self-help DMHI selection; increased financial and expert support to clinical researchers for marketing, design, and user experience in self-help DMHI development; increased involvement of stakeholders in the design of self-help DMHIs; and investing in more research on ways to improve retention (versus initial engagement). We suggest that, through these efforts, self-help DMHIs may fully realize their promise for reducing the global burden of mental illness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.