ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
How have contemporary studies evaluating self-help digital mental health interventions for young people monitored and reported on adverse events and harms?: a systematic scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) can be effective in reducing symptoms of common mental health problems in young people and can overcome many barriers to accessing treatment. These are most scalable when offered as self-help. However, all mental health interventions have the potential to cause harm, and this should be monitored. Aim: To identify current practices and gaps in safety reporting, we systematically mapped how adverse events have been monitored and reported in contemporary studies evaluating self-guided DMHIs for young people. Method: We conducted a systematic scoping review. Two databases were searched for relevant studies published between 2019 and 2024. We synthesised the findings narratively, drawing on content analysis to identify patterns. Results: We included 37 studies, 12 (32.4%) of which described how they assessed adverse events (AEs). AEs were identified through worsening on wellbeing/psychometric measures, measures of risk and suicidal ideation/behaviour, participants self-identifying AEs, and parental reporting of AEs. Additionally, some studies reported on the proportion of participants experiencing AEs, with 8 (21.6%) studies reporting adverse events as an outcome. The most commonly occurring AEs reported were hospitalisation, treatment non-response, depressive symptoms, and significant worsening of symptoms (each 5.4% respectively). Other AEs reported were self-harm, substance misuse, anxiety symptoms, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempt and headaches (each 2.7% respectively). Conclusion: Despite the potential for adverse events to occur while young people are using self-guided DMHIs, our review highlighted a gap in the monitoring of and reporting of adverse events in these kinds of intervention studies.
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.