SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Dose-response relationship in digital psychological therapies for people with psychosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond Usage Time: Rethinking Therapeutic Dose and Effect in Digital Therapeutics.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent digital technological advances have emerged with the aim of improving accessibility, engagement, and effectiveness of psychological interventions for psychosis. Systematic reviews have provided preliminary evidence that digital health technologies for psychosis may improve symptoms. However, little research has examined how treatment effect is related to dose of therapy. Thus, we planned to investigate the association between treatment outcome and different dose characteristics, such as session length, number of sessions and their frequency. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines, including a risk of bias assessment utilizing the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Searches were completed in November 2023 using Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and APA PsychInfo, and were limited to English language and peer-reviewed journal articles. Studies included any randomised controlled trial (including pilot/feasibility studies) in adults that reported a non-interventional control condition and included clinical symptom outcome measurement and dose information. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were completed. Results: 19 studies were included in this review. 14 studies included web, mobile or computer-based interventions, and 5 included virtual reality interventions. Digital interventions significantly improved clinical symptoms, with a small effect size (Cohen's d = -0.14, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-0.23 to -0.05]). Although subgroup analyses were not significant, data patterns favoured interventions focusing on clinical outcomes over cognitive outcomes, and interventions that included therapist support, over those without. Due to the small overall effect size, we were not able to explore dose predictors. Discussion: This meta-analysis provided preliminary evidence that digital mental health interventions for psychosis are effective, even when not targeting symptoms directly. Despite exploring multiple dose characteristics, no significant dose-response relationship was found. Further research is needed to understand the role of dose in digital interventions for psychosis. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023411836, identifier CRD42023411836.
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.