Trial reportJournal of affective disorders2026
Does mental health coaching improve efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression? A pilot randomized controlled trial and benchmarking study.
Trial report in Journal of affective disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is common and burdensome. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is recommended for individuals who do not respond to first-line treatments. Coach-supported digital mental health programs are scalable strategies for delivering therapeutic content. This randomized controlled trial tested whether digital mental health programs bolster rTMS for MDD. N = 36 depressed adults completed a six-week course of rTMS. Of this group, n = 18 were randomized to digital cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT with Coaching), and n = 18 were randomized to digital narrative stories of hope (iNarratives with Coaching). Multilevel models tested group differences in treatment outcomes over time. Principal outcomes focused on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Exploratory analyses compared outcomes versus a Benchmarking Sample of N = 29 patients who received rTMS without coaching. There was a main effect of time (p < .001), indicating an overall reduction in depression symptoms during the trial. Contrary to hypotheses, there was no Group x Time interaction (p = .662), and groups did not differ on clinical response rates (p = .654). Secondary analyses found that the iNarratives group showed greater improvement in positive emotion and functional impairment, whereas the iCBT group showed less dropout from the coaching intervention. Exploratory analyses found a Group x Time interaction (p = .039), potentially suggesting that participants in iCBT or iNarratives showed steeper symptom reduction versus the Benchmarking Sample. The coach-supported iCBT and iNarratives approaches are comparable as adjuncts to rTMS for depression and may yield lower depression scores versus rTMS alone. iNarratives effects appeared specific to increases in positive emotions and decreases in functional impairment.
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.