https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3419-8372
Figures
Abstract
This review summarizes the effectiveness of scalable mind-body internet and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) on depression and anxiety symptoms in adults living with chronic physical conditions. Six databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials published from database inception to March 2023. Mind-body IMIs included cognitive behavioral therapy, breathwork, meditation, mindfulness, yoga or Tai-chi. To focus on interventions with a greater potential for scale, the intervention delivery needed to be online with no or limited facilitation by study personnel. The primary outcome was mean change scores for anxiety and depression (Hedges’ g). In subgroup analyses, random-effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates based on personnel support level, intervention techniques, chronic physical condition, and survey type. Meta-regression was conducted on age and intervention length. Fifty-six studies met inclusion criteria (sample size 7691, mean age of participants 43 years, 58% female): 30% (n = 17) neurological conditions, 12% (n = 7) cardiovascular conditions, 11% cancer (n = 6), 43% other chronic physical conditions (n = 24), and 4% (n = 2) multiple chronic conditions. Mind-body IMIs demonstrated statistically significant pooled reductions in depression (SMD = -0.33 [-0.40, -0.26], p<0.001) and anxiety (SMD = -0.26 [-0.36, -0.17], p<0.001). Heterogeneity was moderate. Scalable mind-body IMIs hold promise as interventions for managing anxiety and depression symptoms in adults with chronic physical conditions without differences seen with age or intervention length. While modest, the effect sizes are comparable to those seen with pharmacological therapy. The field would benefit from detailed reporting of participant demographics including those related to technological proficiency, as well as further evaluation of non-CBT interventions.
Registration: The study is registered with PROSPERO ID #CRD42022375606.
Author summary
Depression and anxiety are common in people living with chronic physical conditions. These symptoms are associated with increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. Mind-body wellness techniques are gaining evidence as practical strategies to reduce these symptoms and improve quality of life across a range of chronic physical conditions. Internet and mobile platforms have become increasingly popular since the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing for delivery of the interventions in the convenience of a patient’s home and across geographical boundaries. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of mind-body internet and mobile interventions (IMIs) including yoga, Tai-chi, breathwork, and cognitive behavioral therapy delivered with limited or no personnel support on symptoms of anxiety and depression relative to control conditions. The inclusion of IMIs as well as interventions with no or limited personnel facilitation uniquely focuses this review on scalable interventions. Recognizing the limitation of moderate heterogeneity, our findings indicate that these interventions can effectively reduce anxiety and depression symptoms in individuals living with chronic physical conditions when compared to controls, with an effect size similar to those seen with pharmacological therapy.
Citation: Johnson E, Corrick S, Isley S, Vandermeer B, Dolgoy N, Bates J, et al. (2024) Mind-body internet and mobile-based interventions for depression and anxiety in adults with chronic physical conditions: A systematic review of RCTs. PLOS Digit Health 3(1): e0000435. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435
Editor: Haleh Ayatollahi, Iran University of Medical Sciences, IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
Received: September 4, 2023; Accepted: December 20, 2023; Published: January 23, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Johnson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data supporting this study's findings are included within the manuscript and its supplementary information files.
Funding: This manuscript is funded through a grant by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). Grant award number: # RES0057213 (PT). Additional funding support from Alberta Health Services, the Alberta SPOR unit Pragmatic Clinical Trials Platform (RES0048995) (PT), and TRIANGLE (TraIning A New generation of researchers in Gastroenterology and LivEr) (EJ).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
An estimated five billion people live with at least one chronic physical condition, with close to 30% of these individuals living with two or more conditions [1]. Defined by the World Health Organization as “conditions requiring ongoing management and treatment over extended periods of time” [2], chronic physical conditions account for an estimated 64% of Disability Adjusted Life Years lost each year globally [3]. These conditions are not only associated with socioeconomic consequences [4] and reduced quality of life [5], but also substantial comorbid mental health symptoms [6]. Systematic reviews have identified an average prevalence of depressive symptoms of 27% [7] and anxiety symptoms ranging from 11–80% depending on the chronic physical condition under evaluation [8]. With increasing recognition of the role of non-pharmacological options in the management of mental health symptoms, there have been a number of studies [9–12] supporting the impact of mind-body wellness techniques as effective management strategies [13].
Mind-body wellness is “an approach that focuses on the interactions among the brain, mind, body and behavior” [14]. Mind-body wellness techniques are based in the perspective that mental and physical health affect each other. These most commonly include techniques such as yoga, meditation and Tai-chi [14,15], but can also include psychotherapy based interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) [16–18]. Mind-body practices are becoming increasingly offered via websites or mobile applications herein referred to as internet and mobile-based interventions (IMIs). This allows reach to a broader group of people across geographic barriers [19,20]. However, despite several reviews reporting positive impacts of mind-body IMIs, these have been limited by the inclusion of: i) specific-mind body techniques (i.e., CBT only, yoga only) [21–24]; ii) specific chronic conditions [25–28]; iii) both chronic mental and physical health conditions despite unique etiologies and symptoms [29]; iv) healthy populations [23,30]; v) non-randomized trial designs [31] or vi) the inclusion of different levels of personnel-facilitation or mixture of in-person and online intervention delivery components within a single study [32]. The latter point is of importance as a high degree of personnel support or the requirement for an in-person delivery component to IMI interventions, while suitable for constrained research projects or high-risk patients, can limit real-world applicability and scale. Across a range of chronic conditions, therefore, there remains uncertainty whether mind-body IMIs have a greater effect across intervention and participant characteristics (intervention length, personnel support level, age), as well as uncertainty about what harms have been identified, and how adherence data are collected and reported.
Accordingly, in individuals living with a range of chronic physical conditions, the primary aim of this review was to systematically review the literature on selected scalable mind-body IMIs (yoga, Tai-chi, breathwork, meditation, mindfulness, CBT, or CBT derivatives) in order to improve the understanding of their effect on symptoms of anxiety and depression. To achieve this, the objectives of this review were to (i) assess the effect of mind-body IMIs on symptoms of anxiety and depression evaluated using psychometrically validated questionnaires in the context of randomized controlled trials RCTs), (ii) to understand the impact of different mind-body techniques, chronic physical condition type, level of personnel support, type of survey used, participant age, and intervention length on symptoms of anxiety and depression, and (iv) to summarize how studies gathered and reported harms and study and intervention adherence data. Based on data from published studies, it was hypothesized that mind-body IMIs would demonstrate significant benefit irrespective of the chronic physical condition type [6,33]. It was hypothesized that more benefit would be seen with a longer intervention duration that would allow for more time to fully engage with intervention content [34,35], and with increased personnel support that would support accountability [36,37]. Increased benefit was also anticipated with younger participants, as they may present with higher levels of psychological distress [38], and may also find it easier to engage with online interventions due to higher digital technology proficiency [39].
Methods
Search strategy
Electronic searches were independently performed in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SCOPUS (last update March 17, 2023). The search strategy included any RCT of mind-body IMIs in people living with chronic physical conditions with anxiety and depression outcomes. The search for all databases is presented in the S1 Appendix. An English language restriction was imposed. In addition, hand searches were conducted among reference lists of relevant review articles.
Study selection
Articles retrieved during the searches were screened for relevance; those considered as potentially eligible were evaluated based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria outlined using PICOD [40]. Population–Inclusion required adult (≥18 years of age) participants living with a chronic physical condition. Studies recruiting participants living with chronic primary mental health conditions (e.g., major depressive disorder), involving participants described as ‘cancer survivors’ or involving pediatric patients or their caregivers were excluded. Intervention–Interventions delivering one of the three categories of mind-body wellness techniques targeted in this review: “CBT” (includes CBT or CBT derivatives), “non-CBT” (includes selected non-CBT mind-body wellness techniques ‐ breathwork, meditation, mindfulness, yoga, Tai-chi), and “CBT+" (includes techniques from both CBT and non-CBT categories). Interventions had to be delivered through internet or mobile platforms, excluding digital video discs (DVD) and teleconference methods. They could be either "self-guided" without study personnel support or "personnel facilitated" which involved personnel to support participation. This excluded those interventions in which personnel were required to deliver the intervention (e.g., personnel delivering a weekly CBT therapy session). Comparator–No intervention or intervention not containing a mind-body technique. Outcomes–Included studies required pre-and-post anxiety and/or depression questionnaires that were psychometrically validated. Design–Only RCT studies were included.
Data abstraction
Articles returned were imported into the Covidence review management system [41]. References were examined at the title/abstract level independently by two authors and, if potentially suitable for inclusion, were retrieved as complete articles. One author extracted data and a second author verified the extracted data using a form constructed on REDCap [42]. The primary outcome was the difference in mean scores of validated depression and anxiety measures with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For studies that used multiple surveys to measure anxiety or depression, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was prioritized for the primary analysis, followed by the Personal Health Questionnaire-8/9 (PHQ-8/9) for depression, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) for anxiety. These surveys were chosen post-hoc based-on frequency of scale use. Secondary outcomes were comparisons of mind-body technique, chronic physical condition type, personnel support level, and description of study and intervention adherence data. Demographic characteristics, including sex, gender, race, technological literacy, and age were also collected. If reported, intention-to-treat data were used. Harms data was collected, including if adverse events were reported, the frequency within each study arm, and how this information was collected. In circumstances of missing or unclear data, an email attempt to contact the corresponding author was made.
Risk of bias assessment
The risk of bias in each study was assessed by two authors using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs (version 2.0) [43]. Each of the five risk domains was scored against a three-point rating scale, corresponding to a low, moderate, and high risk of bias.
Data analysis and synthesis
This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022375606) and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [44]. All analyses were performed with ReviewManager (version 5.3) and Stata 17 [45,46]. Data were synthesized using random effects based on Hedges’ g statistic, which is used to estimate the effect size for the difference between means of continuous measures between the intervention and control conditions. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) and their 95% CIs were estimated for depression and anxiety outcomes to allow a comparison of all studies together regardless of the use of different scales. Calculations for missing variables (i.e., missing mean change scores) were completed in accordance with “Handling Continuous Outcomes in Quantitative Synthesis: Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews” [47]. For baseline calculations in which no correlation was provided, a correlation of 0.5 was imputed. For manuscripts with multiple follow-up points, the collection points closest to the completion of the intervention were used. In cases where intervention length was not defined by the authors, the mean completion length by participants were used. Statistical significance was set at the two-tailed 0.05 level for hypothesis testing. Unadjusted p-values are reported throughout. As per previous recommendations, an effect size of 0.2 was determined as small, 0.5 medium as medium, and 0.8 as large [23]. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic [48]. Results from studies grouped according to pre-hoc study level characteristics were compared using random effects meta-regression (age, intervention length) or stratified meta-analysis (subgroups by survey type, mind-body technique, chronic physical condition group, personnel facilitation versus self-guided).
Results
Study selection
Database screening and manual searches yielded a total of 18,325 articles; 56 RCTs met inclusion criteria, involving a total of 7691 study participants (Fig 1).
Study characteristics
The mean age of participants was 43 years (ranged from 18–86 years) and the mean number of participants per study was 137 (ranged from 20–676). Most participants were female (n = 4620 (58%)), with one study including only males [49], one including only females [50], and one not reporting participant sex [51]. Most were conducted in the United States (10, 18%) [52–61], Sweden (9, 16%) [62–70], Netherlands (8, 14%) [71–78] and the United Kingdom (9, 16%) [49,51,79–85] with the remaining 20 trials conducted in other countries. Twenty-four different chronic physical conditions were identified; for ease of analysis the conditions were divided into four post-hoc groupings based on frequency: neurological conditions (17, 30%) (e.g., Parkinson’s disease) [52,53,59,62,63,66,71,80,82,83,85–91] followed by cardiovascular conditions (e.g., heart failure) (7, 12%) [65,69,70,74,78,92,93], cancer (6, 11%) [54,57,58,64,94,95], and other (24, 43%) (e.g., HIV). Two trials enrolled participants living with multiple chronic conditions [96,97].
Included trials (Table 1) were two-armed RCTs (55, 98%) and three-armed RCTs (1, 2%). Control groups either received no intervention (22, 39%) [54,59,61,64,70,72,73,75,77,78,82,85,90,93,95,97–103], basic education (pamphlet, online information) (2, 4%)[79, 84], access to a discussion forum (5, 9%) [63,65,67–69], or were waitlisted and received treatment as usual (27, 48%) [49–58,60,62,66,71,76,80,81,83,86–89,91,94,96,104]. Interventions lasted between 4 weeks and 12 months (median = 9 weeks). The interventions were predominantly delivered using a website (49, 88%) [49,50,52–54,56,59–78,80–94,96–101,104,105], with the minority delivered on mobile applications (5, 9%) [51,55,58,95,103], or a combination (2, 3%)[57,79]. Nine interventions (16%) [49,51,57,58,87,88,91,95,103] were commercially available (e.g., Headspace) and the remainder were created specifically for the research study. The most commonly used mind-body wellness intervention was CBT (28, 50%) [56,59,61,63–66,69–75,77,80–83,85,92,93,96–100], followed by interventions with a combination of CBT and non-CBT techniques (CBT+) (18, 32%) [49,50,52,53,55,62,67,68,76,84,86,87,89–91,94,101,105], and then non-CBT techniques alone (10, 18%) [51,54,57,58,60,78,79,95,103,104]. Most studies assessed both anxiety and depression (47, 84%) with three studies (5%) reporting only on anxiety [56,61,67] and six studies (11%) reporting only on depression [65,82,87,91,100,104]. Seventy-three percent (n = 41) of studies provided mental health specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Nineteen of these studies used specific thresholds on mental health questionnaires to determine eligibility; 8 for inclusion [49,65,69,73,75,77,89,93], 5 for exclusion [54,55,64,96,99], and 6 for both inclusion and exclusion [70,71,76,82,92,105]. Sixteen studies specifically named suicidality as an exclusion criteria [55,63,64,66,67,69–71,76,87,88,91,92,96,99,100]. A similar number of studies included interventions that were either “self-guided” (25, 45%) [49,51,54,55,57,58,60–62,78,79,81,82,85,87–91,94,95,98,100,101,104] or included “personnel-facilitation” (31, 55%) [50,52,53,56,59,63–73,75–77,80,83,84,86,92,93,96,97,99,102,103,105]. Studies described as “self-guided” were interventions that ranged from no support to, at most, technology support from study personnel to ensure participants were able to access the intervention. Studies described as “personnel facilitated” ranged from infrequent emails or communication through the digital platform with study personnel, to at most, weekly brief communication (∼15 minutes) via video, phone, or email to give feedback on homework assignments.
Risk of bias
The randomization procedure for most of the studies was considered adequate (38, 68%). Most studies reported details of allocation concealment (52, 93%), but the blinding of participants was well described in only a few studies due to the nature of the intervention (4, 7%). Most studies reported blinding of outcomes (50, 89%). Many studies had missing or incomplete outcome data due to participant drop out (44, 79%) (S2 Appendix).
Harms
Eighteen of the studies included in this review reported on adverse events, including reporting zero events (n = 9) [52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 76, 83, 84, 87]. Of the nine studies that reported and collected data about adverse events, five reported physical and mental health events [66,72, 79, 86, 90], and four collected information related only to mental health events [49, 70, 71, 88] (i.e., worsening HADS-D scores, suicidality, etc.). Two of these studies provided specific thresholds for survey questionnaires, beyond which an adverse event was considered [71, 90]. When reported, the prevalence of adverse events ranged from 2% to 11%. Adverse events were listed as a primary or secondary outcome for two of the RCTs included in this review [86, 88]. For studies that provided this level of detail (n = 12), adverse events were collected by direct communication between participants and the study investigators [55, 59, 66, 72, 78, 79, 86], a questionnaire [49, 87, 88, 90], or a mixture of the two [54].
Fig 2 depicts the forest plot showing the effect size of the change in depression between intervention and control groups. Depression was assessed in 53 studies with an overall sample size of 7463 participants. The results of the meta-analysis combining the 53 studies found a significant difference in change in depression scores between the intervention and control groups (SMD = -0.33 [-0.40, -0.26], p<0.001, I2 = 52%; Fig 2).
Depression
Of eight measures used to report depression, the HADS-D was the most commonly reported (24, 45%), followed by the PHQ-8/9 (14, 26%). Subgroup analyses by the two most reported measures (HADS-D, PHQ-8/9) as compared to all other measures (S3 Appendix) showed no significant subgroup differences (p = 0.09), and a significant impact on depression scores in all subgroups. The greatest heterogeneity was in the PHQ-8/9 subgroup (I2 = 71%), followed by the HADS-D group (I2 = 24%). Subgroup analysis by intervention type (CBT, CBT+, and non-CBT interventions p = 0.35), personnel support level (“self-guided” versus “personnel-facilitated”, p = 0.88) and chronic disease groupings (p = 0.37) revealed significant impact on depression scores in all subgroups and no significant subgroup differences (S4 Appendix to S6 Appendix). The meta-regressions assessing participant mean age and intervention length with a change in depression score revealed a non-statistically significant relationship for either factor (intervention length: p = 0.37; age: p = 0.28) (S7 Appendix) supporting the beneficial impact on depression regardless of age or intervention length.
Anxiety
A meta-analysis combining the results of 50 studies assessing anxiety with an overall sample size of 7211 participants showed a significant change in anxiety scores between intervention and control groups (SMD = -0.26 [-0.36, -0.17], p<0.001, I2 = 72%) (Fig 3).
Of 12 measures used to report anxiety, HADS-Anxiety (HADS-A) was the most common (24, 48%), followed by the GAD-7 scale (9, 18%). Subgroup analyses by the two most reported measures (HADS-A, GAD-7) as compared to all remaining measures (S8 Appendix) identified benefit across subgroups without subgroup differences (p = 0.30, I2 = 17%). Similarly, subgroup analyses of intervention type (CBT, CBT+, and non-CBT interventions, p = 0.09) and personnel support level (“self-guided” versus “personnel-facilitated, p = 0.53) showed (S9 Appendix and S10 Appendix) benefit across subgroups with no significant subgroup differences. For chronic physical condition groupings, although there was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 82%), there were significant subgroup differences (p<0.001) identified. Significant impact on anxiety was seen in the neurological conditions (SMD = -0.26 [-0.38, -0.14], p<0.001) and ‘other’ subgroups (SMD = -0.34 [-0.50, -0.18], p<0.001), but the cardiovascular and cancer subgroups did not reach statistical significance (cardiovascular: SMD = 0.03 [-0.10, 0.15], p = 0.89, I2 = 0%; cancer: SMD = -0.18 [-0.39, 0.03], p = 0.08, I2 = 50%) (S11 Appendix). The results of the meta-regression assessing the impact of intervention length (p = 0.46) or age (p = 0.12) on anxiety were not significant (S12 Appendix) supporting beneficial impact on anxiety regardless of these factors.
Adherence
Two types of adherence were described–intervention adherence and study adherence (i.e. study completion). Thirty-eight studies (68%) provided an explicit ‘dose’ or recommendation for how often the intervention should be completed to receive the most benefit [49, 50, 52–56, 58, 61, 62, 66–72, 74–76, 78, 80, 81, 85–87, 89, 90, 92–96, 99–101, 104–106]. Nearly all studies described intervention adherence (43, 77%) [49, 51, 54, 55, 57–59, 61, 63–72, 74–80, 82–86, 90, 92, 94–96, 98–101, 103, 105], including homework/task/lesson completion (11, 20%)[55, 65–68, 71, 72, 77, 82, 96, 103], user data as tracked by the platform (logins, video completion) (19, 34%) [51 54,57,58,69,70,74,77–79,83–85 90,94,95,99,101,105], and self-report (13, 23%)[59, 61, 75, 76, 80, 83, 88, 91–93, 97, 98, 100] methods. When using homework/tasks completed in studies where data was reported (n = 3) [67, 71, 77], intervention adherence ranged from 69% to 92%. For these studies, participants were more commonly divided according to level of tasks completed (e.g., non-completers vs completers) than as continuous data (e.g., proportion that completed week 1, week 2, etc.). Study adherence was provided by all studies and defined as end-of-study survey completion/dropouts. When defined as end-of-study survey completion, and when data were reported (n = 4) [59,77,80 92], study adherence ranged from 73% to 97%.
Discussion
This systematic review and meta-analysis of 56 RCTs, involving 7691 individuals with chronic physical conditions, found that scalable mind-body IMIs significantly improved symptoms of depression and anxiety compared to control conditions. Cognitive behavioral therapy was the primary approach in 50% of trials and was combined with non-CBT interventions in 32% of trials. Effect sizes for depression (SMD = -0.33 [-0.40, -0.26], p<0.001) and anxiety (SMD = -0.26 [-0.36, -0.17], p<0.001) were statistically significant and moderate in magnitude. These effect sizes are consistent with those from another review comparing face-to-face CBT to IMI CBT[107], and a review by Tao and colleagues (2023) focusing solely on CBT-based IMIs (depression SMD = -0.45; anxiety SMD = -0.33) [24]. Notably, the effect sizes in this review are also comparable to pharmacotherapeutic approaches for anxiety [108] and depression[109, 110].
This review is unique in its emphasis on scalable self-guided (45%) or minimally supported (55%) mind-body IMIs. In this review, small but statistically significant pooled effect sizes were observed, with no discernible difference between the self-guided and limited personnel support subgroups. This benefit despite level of personnel support is different from what was hypothesized but is a favorable conclusion in that the associated costs of a personnel supported approach may limit widespread implementation. Notably, as this review was focused on no or minimal personnel support, the impact of more intensive personnel support could not be evaluated. Moreover, the results can only be generalized to the population in which the intervention was evaluated. As detailed in Table 1, multiple studies excluded those participants who may have necessitated additional personnel support, including those with suicidal ideation and co-morbid psychiatric conditions.
The review, which includes CBT, non-CBT, and combination interventions found no significant differences in the impact on mental health outcomes between these subgroups. While there were a relatively small number of trials involving solely non-CBT interventions (10 trials, 18%) and some statistical heterogeneity mandating cautious interpretation, it is noteworthy that other published data align with these findings of similar mental health outcomes with both CBT and non-CBT interventions. For instance, a systematic review of 30 RCTs, four of which used online platforms, revealed the equivalence of CBT and mindfulness-based interventions in terms of depression [111]. Another systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 RCTs found no differences in depression outcomes between a CBT-based intervention, physical exercise, or a combination of the two [112]. The body of evidence supporting the impact of non-CBT interventions on mental health outcomes continues to grow, encompassing mindfulness-based stress reduction, other meditation techniques, and mindful movement [113–115]. Additionally, studies on breathwork practices have shown a small-medium effect in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression in clinical populations [23, 116–120]. The findings of the current review lend support to the idea that non-CBT and combination interventions can serve as alternative strategies to promote mental health [111]. This is of particular relevance as CBT, while recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage anxiety [121] and depression [122], may not be effective for all patients. Future studies can add to the understanding of how best to tailor the choice of mind-body IMI to individual needs. In the meantime, it has been suggested [10] that psychotherapeutic techniques like CBT may be most effective in people with primary mental health conditions [123], whereas traditional mind-body techniques like yoga and Tai-chi may be most effective for mental health concerns in those living with physical health conditions [124, 125]. As 10–36% of people living with chronic physical conditions also live with clinical depression or anxiety, it is anticipated that a combination of both practices may prove to offer the most variety to participants and be the most applicable [126, 127].
Contrary to initial hypotheses, the age of participants in the review did not significantly influence depression or anxiety outcomes, despite potential variations in how different age groups engage with IMIs. The “digital divide” [128]—which represents a gap in technology access and use [129] can create barriers to healthcare [130]. Unfortunately, few studies included in this review provided information on participants’ technological literacy or socioeconomic status beyond race, marital status, and sex. To address technology access disparities, future studies should collect baseline data on socioeconomic status and technological literacy. A 2021 systematic review of digital interventions for physical activity showed benefits for individuals of high socioeconomic status, but not for individuals of lower socioeconomic status [131]. The extent to which these findings are mimicked in mind-body IMIs has yet to be evaluated.
Within the limitations of moderate heterogeneity, the review discovered that mind-body IMIs had varying effects on different chronic conditions. While benefit was seen for symptoms of depression across all chronic condition subgroups, anxiety symptoms were not impacted in the cancer and cardiovascular subgroups. It is unclear whether this is a true finding, or whether it is instead related to insufficient data to draw conclusions. In the anxiety related analysis, there were a small number of studies in the cancer (n = 6) and cardiovascular groups (n = 6), alongside notable heterogeneity in the clinical populations enrolled. Across studies amongst individuals with cancer, differing tumor stages were enrolled [54, 57, 58, 64]. In the cardiovascular subgroup, enrollment ranged across individuals with a recent myocardial infarction [70], those with established coronary artery disease [65, 69, 92], and those who received an implantable cardiovascular device [74, 93]. The experience [132] and prevalence [23] of anxiety may be influenced by disease stage [133, 134], and factors like sex, location, and socioeconomic status [6, 126, 133]. This study points to the need for additional research evaluating the role of IMIs for the management of anxiety in these subgroups.
The current review aimed to assess intervention adherence but faced challenges due to limited reporting and inconsistent adherence definitions. Adherence is a crucial measure of the success of mind-body interventions. In a >200,000 patient systematic review of app-based interventions for chronic disease management, IMIs experience dropout rates as high as 43% [135]. From other reports, up to 80% of enrolled participants have been found to engage minimally [136, 137], with fewer than 5% being daily users in real world settings [138, 139]. Studies included in the current review lacked consistency on the measurement of adherence. Survey completion and self-reports were the most common markers, despite their limitations like recall bias, overestimation, and the possibility that participants may feel clinical improvement and stop using the intervention [140]. Adherence is most useful in explaining outcomes when interventions have a lower effect than hypothesized, making it an important factor for future studies to document carefully. Future research should explore alternative data collection methods, including tracking of activity within the IMI or the use of sensors or physiological measures for more objective evaluation.
While this study had strengths, including the inclusion of RCTs, >7500 participants, and diverse chronic conditions, there are several limitations to consider. Moderate to substantial heterogeneity [141] and variations in interventions and clinical characteristics were observed among the included studies. Effect sizes for anxiety and depression were combined within four chronic physical condition subgroups, acknowledging potential disparities in symptom experience and impact. To mitigate variability, a random effects standardized mean difference model was used to calculate the pooled difference. Missing mean change score data in some studies required manual calculation [47, 142], potentially introducing inaccuracies. When unavailable, authors were contacted via email for their data (n = 10; 4 responded). Variations in eligibility thresholds for validated questionnaires could lead to bias or dilution of treatment effects. As detailed in Table 1, mental health inclusion and exclusion criteria differed across studies, with varying cut-points for eligibility and variable exclusion of individuals with psychiatric comorbidities and suicidality. Lastly, the evidence base had a geographical bias toward high-income countries, limiting the generalizability of the findings to low- and middle-income countries.
Conclusions and future directions
In an era of a growing reliance on digital health and rising rates of chronic disease and mental distress, this meta-analysis of RCTs reveals that scalable mind-body IMIs have a statistically significant impact on depression and anxiety symptoms across various chronic physical conditions. To further the understanding of the magnitude of benefit and generalizability, large-scale transdiagnostic RCTs are welcomed that include participants with varying chronic physical conditions, collect factors associated with technology proficiency, and assess cost-effectiveness. Additional focus is also required on the effect of non-CBT based IMI interventions. Awaiting further advancements in this field, and under the weight of growing chronic disease and mental distress, the evidence synthesized by this review is sufficient to assist healthcare providers and policymakers to lobby for these strategies as accessible and effective adjuncts to clinical care.
Supporting information
S3 Appendix. Depression subgroup analyses by scale.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s003
(TIF)
S4 Appendix. Depression subgroup analyses by intervention type.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s004
(TIF)
S5 Appendix. Depression subgroup analyses by delivery modality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s005
(TIF)
S6 Appendix. Depression subgroup analyses by chronic condition groupings.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s006
(TIF)
S7 Appendix. Effect of intervention length and age on standardized mean change in depression score.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s007
(TIF)
S8 Appendix. Anxiety subgroup analyses by scale.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s008
(TIF)
S9 Appendix. Anxiety subgroup analyses by intervention type.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s009
(TIF)
S10 Appendix. Anxiety subgroup analyses by intervention delivery modality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s010
(TIF)
S11 Appendix. Anxiety subgroup analyses by chronic condition groupings.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s011
(TIF)
S12 Appendix. Effect of intervention length and age on standardized mean change in anxiety score.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000435.s012
(TIF)
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (AbSPORU) institute for statistical support and training. The authors would also like to extend sincere gratitude to librarian Liz Dennett (LD) for her support in refining the search criteria, identifying databases, and supporting us through the search process. The authors would also like to thank Stéphanie Bernard for her kindness, insights, and training. All authors discussed and refined the direction and development of this review. EJ, SI, SC, with guidance from LD, PT, and ND developed the methodology and search strategy. EJ, SI, SC, JB, CS, EG, and CM screened articles for inclusion. EJ and SC drafted the manuscript and designed the tables and figures. PT supervised all stages. All authors approved of and reviewed the final manuscript.
References
- 1. Hajat C, Stein E. The global burden of multiple chronic conditions: A narrative review. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:284–93. pmid:30406006
- 2.
World Health Organization. Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment: WHO global report. World Health Organization. 2005.
- 3. Roser M, Ritchie H. Burden of disease. Published online at OurWorldInDataorg. 2021.
- 4. Zhang W, McLeod C, Koehoorn M. The relationship between chronic conditions and absenteeism and associated costs in Canada. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;42(5):413–22. pmid:27510927
- 5. Megari K. Quality of Life in Chronic Disease Patients. Health Psychol Res. 2013;1(3):e27-e. pmid:26973912
- 6. Bobo W, Grossardt B, Virani S, St Sauver J, Boyd C, Rocca W. Association of Depression and Anxiety With the Accumulation of Chronic Conditions. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(5):e229817-e. pmid:35499825
- 7. Wang J, Wu X, Lai W, Long E, Zhang X, Li W, et al. Prevalence of depression and depressive symptoms among outpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e017173. pmid:28838903
- 8. Romanazzo S, Mansueto G, Cosci F. Anxiety in the Medically Ill: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:873126. pmid:35722552
- 9. Grasser LR, Marusak H. Strong mind, strong body: The promise of mind–body interventions to address growing mental health needs among youth. Mental Health Science. 2023;n/a(n/a). pmid:37810896
- 10. Hofmann SG, Gómez AF. Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Anxiety and Depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2017;40(4):739–49. pmid:29080597
- 11. Augsburg JB, Dar MI, Wood K, Rasmussen TB, Risom SS. A systematic literature review of the effect of mind-body interventions on mental health among patients with atrial fibrillation. Mental Health & Prevention. 2022;28:200245.
- 12. Ruiz-Ariza B, Hita-Contreras F, Rodríguez-López C, Rivas-Campo Y, Aibar-Almazán A, Carcelén-Fraile MD, et al. Effects of Mind-Body Training as a Mental Health Therapy in Adults with Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine [Internet]. 2023; 12(3). pmid:36769502
- 13. Greeson JM, Chin GR. Mindfulness and physical disease: a concise review. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;28:204–10. pmid:30785067
- 14.
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Mind-Body Medicine: An Overview. Backgrounder. 2004.
- 15. Institute NNC. Mind-Body Practice. NIH NCI Dictionaries. 2022.
- 16. Lee S-H, Cho SJ. Cognitive behavioral therapy and Mindfulness-Based cognitive therapy for depressive disorders. Major Depressive Disorder: Rethinking and Understanding Recent Discoveries. 2021:295–310. pmid:33834406
- 17. Borza L. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2022.
- 18.
Lee RT, Moore JA. Chapter 6 ‐ Integrative Oncology and Ethics. In: Gallagher C, Ewer M, editors. Ethical Challenges in Oncology. Boston: Academic Press; 2017. p. 101–19.
- 19. Schueller SM, Torous J. Scaling evidence-based treatments through digital mental health. Am Psychol. 2020;75(8):1093–104. pmid:33252947
- 20. Balcombe L, De Leo D. Evaluation of the Use of Digital Mental Health Platforms and Interventions: Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2023; 20(1).
- 21. Desveaux L, Lee A, Goldstein R, Brooks D. Yoga in the Management of Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Med Care. 2015;53(7):653–61. pmid:26035042
- 22. Wang C, Collet JP, Lau J. The effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes in patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(5):493–501. pmid:15006825
- 23. Fincham GW, Strauss C, Montero-Marin J, Cavanagh K. Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1):432. pmid:36624160
- 24. Tao TJ, Lim TK, Yeung ETF, Liu H, Shris PB, Ma LKY, et al. Internet-based and mobile-based cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. npj Digital Medicine. 2023;6(1):80. pmid:37117458
- 25. Kaihara T, Scherrenberg M, Intan-Goey V, Falter M, Kindermans H, Frederix I, et al. Efficacy of digital health interventions on depression and anxiety in patients with cardiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis(). Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2022;3(3):445–54. pmid:36712158
- 26. Oyedeji AD, Ullah I, Weich S, Bentall R, Booth A. Effectiveness of non-specialist delivered psychological interventions on glycemic control and mental health problems in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2022;16(1):9. pmid:35120528
- 27. Varela-Moreno E, Carreira Soler M, Guzmán-Parra J, Jódar-Sánchez F, Mayoral-Cleries F, Anarte-Ortíz MT. Effectiveness of eHealth-Based Psychological Interventions for Depression Treatment in Patients With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:746217. pmid:35173644
- 28. Yanwei H, Qianqian L, Fang Z, Jingyuan S. Effectiveness of internet-based support interventions on patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e057664. pmid:35641011
- 29. Sasseville M, LeBlanc A, Boucher M, Dugas M, Mbemba G, Tchuente J, et al. Digital health interventions for the management of mental health in people with chronic diseases: a rapid review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e044437. pmid:33820786
- 30. Sommers-Spijkerman M, Austin J, Bohlmeijer E, Pots W. New Evidence in the Booming Field of Online Mindfulness: An Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(7):e28168. pmid:34279240
- 31. Toivonen KI, Zernicke K, Carlson LE. Web-Based Mindfulness Interventions for People With Physical Health Conditions: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(8):e303. pmid:28860106
- 32. Beatty L, Lambert S. A systematic review of internet-based self-help therapeutic interventions to improve distress and disease-control among adults with chronic health conditions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(4):609–22. pmid:23603521
- 33. Grossman P, Niemann L, Schmidt S, Walach H. Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57(1):35–43.
- 34. Harrer M, Adam SH, Baumeister H, Cuijpers P, Karyotaki E, Auerbach RP, et al. Internet interventions for mental health in university students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of methods in psychiatric research. 2019;28(2):e1759. pmid:30585363
- 35. Gan DZQ, McGillivray L, Han J, Christensen H, Torok M. Effect of Engagement With Digital Interventions on Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Digit Health. 2021;3:764079. pmid:34806079
- 36. Wright JH, Owen JJ, Richards D, Eells TD, Richardson T, Brown GK, et al. Computer-assisted cognitive-behavior therapy for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of clinical psychiatry. 2019;80(2):3573. pmid:30900849
- 37. Werntz A, Amado S, Jasman M, Ervin A, Rhodes JE. Providing Human Support for the Use of Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Meta-review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e42864. pmid:36745497
- 38. Best R, Strough J, Bruine de Bruin W. Age differences in psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: March 2020 ‐ June 2021. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1101353. pmid:36814666
- 39. Heponiemi T, Kaihlanen A-M, Kouvonen A, Leemann L, Taipale S, Gluschkoff K. The role of age and digital competence on the use of online health and social care services: A cross-sectional population-based survey. DIGITAL HEALTH. 2022;8:20552076221074485. pmid:35111333
- 40. Mehrdad A-B, Ali J. Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emergency Medicine Journal. 2020;37(6):387. pmid:32253195
- 41.
Covidence Systematic Review Software. Veritas Health Innovation. Melbourne, Australia. 2022.
- 42. Harris P, Taylor R, Minor B, Ellior V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international comunity of software partners. J Biomed. 2019.
- 43. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. pmid:22008217
- 44. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021:n71. pmid:33782057
- 45.
The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.4 ed2020.
- 46.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Sofrware: Release 17. College Station, TX. 2021;StataCorp LLC.
- 47. Fu R, Vandermeer BW, Shamliyan TA, O’Neil ME, Yazdi F, Fox SH, et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care Handling Continuous Outcomes in Quantitative Synthesis. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.
- 48. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. pmid:12111919
- 49. Young MD, Drew RJ, Kay-Lambkin F, Collins CE, Callister R, Kelly BJ, et al. Impact of a self-guided, eHealth program targeting weight loss and depression in men: A randomized trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2021;89(8):682–94. pmid:34472895
- 50. Lee TY, Hsieh TC, Sung HC, Chen WL. Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Young Taiwanese Female Nursing Students with Irritable Bowel Syndrome-A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5). pmid:30818837
- 51. Ainsworth B, Stanescu S, Stuart B, Russell D, Liddiard M, Djukanovic R, et al. A feasibility trial of a digital mindfulness-based intervention to improve asthma-related quality of life for primary care patients with asthma. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2022;45(1):133–47. pmid:34448986
- 52. Bromberg J, Wood ME, Black RA, Surette DA, Zacharoff KL, Chiauzzi EJ. A randomized trial of a web-based intervention to improve migraine self-management and coping. Headache. 2012;52(2):244–61. pmid:22413151
- 53. Devineni T, Blanchard EB. A randomized controlled trial of an internet-based treatment for chronic headache. Behav Res Ther. 2005;43(3):277–92. pmid:15680926
- 54. Huberty J, Eckert R, Dueck A, Kosiorek H, Larkey L, Gowin K, et al. Online yoga in myeloproliferative neoplasm patients: results of a randomized pilot trial to inform future research. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019;19(1):121. pmid:31174535
- 55. Hunt M, Miguez S, Dukas B, Onwude O, White S. Efficacy of Zemedy, a Mobile Digital Therapeutic for the Self-management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(5):e26152. pmid:33872182
- 56. Hunt MG, Moshier S, Milonova M. Brief cognitive-behavioral internet therapy for irritable bowel syndrome. Behav Res Ther. 2009;47(9):797–802. pmid:19570525
- 57. Kubo A, Kurtovich E, McGinnis M, Aghaee S, Altschuler A, Quesenberry C Jr., et al. Pilot pragmatic randomized trial of mHealth mindfulness-based intervention for advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers. Psychooncology. 2020. pmid:32979294
- 58. Kubo A, Kurtovich E, McGinnis M, Aghaee S, Altschuler A, Quesenberry C Jr., et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of mHealth Mindfulness Intervention for Cancer Patients and Informal Cancer Caregivers: A Feasibility Study Within an Integrated Health Care Delivery System. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019;18:1534735419850634. pmid:31092044
- 59. Motl RW, Hubbard EA, Bollaert RE, Adamson BC, Kinnett-Hopkins D, Balto JM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of an e-learning designed behavioral intervention for increasing physical activity behavior in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2017;3(4):2055217317734886. pmid:29051831
- 60. Pagnini F, Phillips D, Haulman A, Bankert M, Simmons Z, Langer E. An online non-meditative mindfulness intervention for people with ALS and their caregivers: a randomized controlled trial. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2022;23(1–2):116–27. pmid:34027769
- 61. Rini C, Porter LS, Somers TJ, McKee DC, DeVellis RF, Smith M, et al. Automated Internet-based pain coping skills training to manage osteoarthritis pain: a randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2015;156(5):837–48. pmid:25734997
- 62. Andersson G, Strömgren T, Ström L, Lyttkens L. Randomized controlled trial of internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for distress associated with tinnitus. Psychosom Med. 2002;64(5):810–6. pmid:12271112
- 63. Hesser H, Gustafsson T, Lundén C, Henrikson O, Fattahi K, Johnsson E, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy in the treatment of tinnitus. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012;80(4):649–61. pmid:22250855
- 64. Hauffman A, Alfonsson S, Bill-Axelson A, Bergkvist L, Forslund M, Mattsson S, et al. Cocreated internet-based stepped care for individuals with cancer and concurrent symptoms of anxiety and depression: Results from the U-CARE AdultCan randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2020;29(12):2012–8. pmid:32691455
- 65. Johansson P, Westas M, Andersson G, Alehagen U, Broström A, Jaarsma T, et al. An Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Program Adapted to Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Depression: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2019;6(10):e14648. pmid:31584000
- 66. Kraepelien M, Schibbye R, Månsson K, Sundström C, Riggare S, Andersson G, et al. Individually Tailored Internet-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Daily Functioning in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020;10(2):653–64. pmid:32176657
- 67. Ljótsson B, Falk L, Vesterlund AW, Hedman E, Lindfors P, Rück C, et al. Internet-delivered exposure and mindfulness based therapy for irritable bowel syndrome—a randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. 2010;48(6):531–9. pmid:20362976
- 68. Ljótsson B, Andersson G, Andersson E, Hedman E, Lindfors P, Andréewitch S, et al. Acceptability, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of internet-based exposure treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical sample: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:110. pmid:21992655
- 69. Lundgren JG, Dahlström Ö, Andersson G, Jaarsma T, Kärner Köhler A, Johansson P. The Effect of Guided Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Patients With Depressive Symptoms and Heart Failure: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(8):e194. pmid:27489077
- 70. Norlund F, Wallin E, Olsson EMG, Wallert J, Burell G, von Essen L, et al. Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Among Patients With a Recent Myocardial Infarction: The U-CARE Heart Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e88. pmid:29519777
- 71. Boeschoten RE, Dekker J, Uitdehaag BM, Beekman AT, Hoogendoorn AW, Collette EH, et al. Internet-based treatment for depression in multiple sclerosis: A randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler. 2017;23(8):1112–22. pmid:27682229
- 72. Cardol CK, van Middendorp H, Dusseldorp E, van der Boog PJM, Hilbrands LB, Navis G, et al. eHealth to Improve Psychological Functioning and Self-Management of People With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychosom Med. 2023;85(2):203–15. pmid:36662615
- 73. Ferwerda M, van Beugen S, van Middendorp H, Spillekom-van Koulil S, Donders ART, Visser H, et al. A tailored-guided internet-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for patients with rheumatoid arthritis as an adjunct to standard rheumatological care: results of a randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2017;158(5):868–78. pmid:28106666
- 74. Habibović M, Denollet J, Cuijpers P, Spek VR, van den Broek KC, Warmerdam L, et al. E-health to manage distress in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: primary results of the WEBCARE trial. Psychosom Med. 2014;76(8):593–602. pmid:25264974
- 75. Nadort E, Schouten RW, Boeschoten RE, Smets Y, Chandie Shaw P, Vleming LJ, et al. Internet-based treatment for depressive symptoms in hemodialysis patients: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2022;75:46–53. pmid:35134703
- 76. van Luenen S, Garnefski N, Spinhoven P, Kraaij V. Guided internet-based intervention for people with HIV and depressive symptoms: a randomised controlled trial in the Netherlands. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(9):e488–e97. pmid:30135045
- 77. van Beugen S, Ferwerda M, Spillekom-van Koulil S, Smit JV, Zeeuwen-Franssen ME, Kroft EB, et al. Tailored Therapist-Guided Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychother Psychosom. 2016;85(5):297–307. pmid:27508937
- 78. Younge JO, Wery MF, Gotink RA, Utens EM, Michels M, Rizopoulos D, et al. Web-Based Mindfulness Intervention in Heart Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143843. pmid:26641099
- 79. Ainsowrth B, Kate G, Beth S, James R, Frances M, Anne B, et al. Feasibility trial of a digital self-management intervention ‘My Breathing Matters’ to improve asthma-related quality of life for UK primary care patients with asthma. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032465. pmid:31722952
- 80. Beukes EW, Baguley DM, Allen PM, Manchaiah V, Andersson G. Audiologist-Guided Internet-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Adults With Tinnitus in the United Kingdom: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ear Hear. 2018;39(3):423–33. pmid:29095725
- 81. Bundy C, Pinder B, Bucci S, Reeves D, Griffiths CE, Tarrier N. A novel, web-based, psychological intervention for people with psoriasis: the electronic Targeted Intervention for Psoriasis (eTIPs) study. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(2):329–36. pmid:23551271
- 82. Cooper CL, Hind D, Parry GD, Isaac CL, Dimairo M, O’Cathain A, et al. Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in people with multiple sclerosis: external pilot trial. Trials. 2011;12:259. pmid:22168507
- 83. Moss-Morris R, McCrone P, Yardley L, van Kessel K, Wills G, Dennison L. A pilot randomised controlled trial of an Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy self-management programme (MS Invigor8) for multiple sclerosis fatigue. Behav Res Ther. 2012;50(6):415–21. pmid:22516321
- 84. Murray E, Sweeting M, Dack C, Pal K, Modrow K, Hudda M, et al. Web-based self-management support for people with type 2 diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes): randomised controlled trial in English primary care. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e016009. pmid:28954789
- 85. Wadon ME, MacIver C, Winter M, Peall KJ. Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy as a feasible treatment of adult-onset, focal, isolated, idiopathic cervical dystonia. Clin Park Relat Disord. 2021;5:100121. pmid:34927048
- 86. Burke D, Lennon O, Blake C, Nolan M, Barry S, Smith E, et al. An internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme for spinal cord injury pain: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pain. 2019;23(7):1264–82. pmid:31002442
- 87. Fischer A, Schröder J, Vettorazzi E, Wolf OT, Pöttgen J, Lau S, et al. An online programme to reduce depression in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(3):217–23. pmid:26359900
- 88. Meyer B, Weiss M, Holtkamp M, Arnold S, Brückner K, Schröder J, et al. Effects of an epilepsy-specific Internet intervention (Emyna) on depression: Results of the ENCODE randomized controlled trial. Epilepsia. 2019;60(4):656–68. pmid:30802941
- 89. Migliorini C, Sinclair A, Brown D, Tonge B, New P. A randomised control trial of an Internet-based cognitive behaviour treatment for mood disorder in adults with chronic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(9):695–701. pmid:26690861
- 90. Pöttgen J, Moss-Morris R, Wendebourg JM, Feddersen L, Lau S, Köpke S, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a self-guided online fatigue intervention in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018;89(9):970–6. pmid:29549193
- 91. Schröder J, Brückner K, Fischer A, Lindenau M, Köther U, Vettorazzi E, et al. Efficacy of a psychological online intervention for depression in people with epilepsy: a randomized controlled trial. Epilepsia. 2014;55(12):2069–76. pmid:25410633
- 92. Bendig E, Bauereiß N, Buntrock C, Habibović M, Ebert DD, Baumeister H. Lessons learned from an attempted randomized-controlled feasibility trial on "WIDeCAD" ‐ An internet-based depression treatment for people living with coronary artery disease (CAD). Internet Interv. 2021;24:100375. pmid:33732627
- 93. Schulz SM, Ritter O, Zniva R, Nordbeck P, Wacker C, Jack M, et al. Efficacy of a web-based intervention for improving psychosocial well-being in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the randomized controlled ICD-FORUM trial. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(11):1203–11. pmid:30957867
- 94. Neubert S, Schlecht S, Meng K, Rabe A, Jentschke E. Effects of a Video Sequence Based Intervention on Anxiety, Fatigue and Depression in Cancer Patients: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Integr Cancer Ther. 2023;22:15347354231153172. pmid:36799503
- 95. Rocamora González C, Rodríguez Vega B, Torrijos Zarcero M, Mediavilla R, Bouzó Molina N, Plaza Fernández R, et al. Mindfulness based intervention through mobile app for colorectal cancer people awaiting surgery: A randomized clinical trial. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2022;100(12):747–54. pmid:36064177
- 96. Dear BF, Scott AJ, Fogliati R, Gandy M, Karin E, Dudeney J, et al. The Chronic Conditions Course: A Randomised Controlled Trial of an Internet-Delivered Transdiagnostic Psychological Intervention for People with Chronic Health Conditions. Psychother Psychosom. 2022;91(4):265–76. pmid:35367986
- 97. Read J, Sharpe L, Burton AL, Arean PA, Raue PJ, McDonald S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy to prevent the development of depressive disorders in older adults with multimorbidity. J Affect Disord. 2020;264:464–73. pmid:31767215
- 98. Mensorio MS, Cebolla-Martí A, Rodilla E, Palomar G, Lisón JF, Botella C, et al. Analysis of the efficacy of an internet-based self-administered intervention ("Living Better") to promote healthy habits in a population with obesity and hypertension: An exploratory randomized controlled trial. Int J Med Inform. 2019;124:13–23. pmid:30784422
- 99. Newby J, Robins L, Wilhelm K, Smith J, Fletcher T, Gillis I, et al. Web-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Depression in People With Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(5):e157. pmid:28506956
- 100. O’Moore K A, Newby JM, Andrews G, Hunter DJ, Bennell K, Smith J, et al. Internet Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Depression in Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(1):61–70. pmid:28426917
- 101. McCombie A, Gearry R, Andrews J, Mulder R, Mikocka-Walus A. Does Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Help People with Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2016;22(1):171–81. pmid:26360545
- 102. Habibović M, Cuijpers P, Alings M, van der Voort P, Theuns D, Bouwels L, et al. Attrition and adherence in a WEB-Based Distress Management Program for Implantable Cardioverter defibrillator Patients (WEBCARE): randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e52. pmid:24583632
- 103. Hilmarsdóttir E, Sigurðardóttir Á K, Arnardóttir RH. A Digital Lifestyle Program in Outpatient Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2021;15(5):1134–41. pmid:32680441
- 104. Drozd F, Skeie LG, Kraft P, Kvale D. A web-based intervention trial for depressive symptoms and subjective well-being in patients with chronic HIV infection. AIDS Care. 2014;26(9):1080–9. pmid:24359563
- 105. Peerani F, Watt M, Ismond KP, Whitlock R, Ambrosio L, Hotte N, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent online stress reduction intervention in inflammatory bowel disease. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2022;15:17562848221127238. pmid:36187365
- 106. Younge J, Gotink R, Baena C, Roos-Hesselink J, Hunink M. Mind-body practices for patients with cardiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015;22(11):1385–98. pmid:25227551
- 107. Carlbring P, Andersson G, Cuijpers P, Riper H, Hedman-Lagerlöf E. Internet-based vs. face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cogn Behav Ther. 2018;47(1):1–18. pmid:29215315
- 108. Leichsenring F, Steinert C, Rabung S, Ioannidis J. The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta-analytic evaluation of recent meta-analyses. World Psychiatry. 2022;21(1):133–45. pmid:35015359
- 109. Kishi T, Ikuta T, Sakuma K, Okuya M, Hatano M, Matsuda Y, et al. Antidepressants for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder in the maintenance phase: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry. 2023;28(1):402–9. pmid:36253442
- 110. Cipriani A, Furukawa T, Salanti G, Chaimani A, Atkinson L, Ogawa Y, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10128):1357–66. pmid:29477251
- 111. Sverre KT, Nissen E, Farver-Vestergaard I, Johannsen M, Zachariae R. Comparing the efficacy of mindfulness-based therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in head-to-head randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis of equivalence. Clin Psychol Rev. 2023;100:102234. pmid:36527794
- 112. Bernard P, Romain A, Caudroit J, Chevance G, Carayol M, Gourlan M, et al. Cognitive behavior therapy combined with exercise for adults with chronic diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2018;37(5):433–50. pmid:29698018
- 113. Wang C, Bannuru R, Ramel J, Kupelnick B, Scott T, Schmid CH. Tai Chi on psychological well-being: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2010;10:23. pmid:20492638
- 114. Querstret D, Morison L, Dickinson S, Cropley M, John M. Mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for psychological health and well-being in nonclinical samples: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Stress Management. 2020;27(4):394.
- 115.
Pascoe MC, J. de Manincor M, Hallgren M, Baldwin PA, Tseberja J, Parker AG. Psychobiological Mechanisms Underlying the Mental Health Benefits of Yoga-Based Interventions: a Narrative Review. Mindfulness. 2021;12(12):2877–89.
- 116. Banushi B, Brendle M, Ragnhildstveit A, Murphy T, Moore C, Egberts J, et al. Breathwork Interventions for Adults with Clinically Diagnosed Anxiety Disorders: A Scoping Review. Brain Sci. 2023;13(2). pmid:36831799
- 117. Malviya S, Meredith P, Zupan B, Kerley L. Identifying alternative mental health interventions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of chanting and breathwork. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health. 2022;24(2):191–233.
- 118. Zaccaro A, Piarulli A, Laurino M, Garbella E, Menicucci D, Neri B, et al. How Breath-Control Can Change Your Life: A Systematic Review on Psycho-Physiological Correlates of Slow Breathing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2018;12. pmid:30245619
- 119. Ubolnuar N, Tantisuwat A, Thaveeratitham P, Lertmaharit S, Kruapanich C, Mathiyakom W. Effects of Breathing Exercises in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Rehabil Med. 2019;43(4):509–23. pmid:31499605
- 120. Leyro T, Versella M, Yang M-J, Brinkman H, Hoyt D, Lehrer P. Respiratory therapy for the treatment of anxiety: Meta-analytic review and regression. Clinical Psychology Review. 2021;84:101980. pmid:33540222
- 121. Katzman M, Bleau P, Blier P, Chokka P, Kjernisted K, Van Ameringen M, et al. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the management of anxiety, posttraumatic stress and obsessive-compulsive disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):S1. pmid:25081580
- 122. Gautam S, Jain A, Gautam M, Vahia V, Grover S. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of Depression. Indian J Psychiatry. 2017;59(Suppl 1):S34–s50. pmid:28216784
- 123. Fordham B, Sugavanam T, Edwards K, Stallard P, Howard R, das Nair R, et al. The evidence for cognitive behavioural therapy in any condition, population or context: a meta-review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine. 2021;51(1):21–9. pmid:33455594
- 124. Woodyard C. Exploring the therapeutic effects of yoga and its ability to increase quality of life. Int J Yoga. 2011;4(2):49–54. pmid:22022122
- 125. Chen Y, Hunt M, Campbell K, Peill K, Reid W. The effect of Tai Chi on four chronic conditions-cancer, osteoarthritis, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(7):397–407. pmid:26383108
- 126. Ma Y, Xiang Q, Yan C, Liao H, Wang J. Relationship between chronic diseases and depression: the mediating effect of pain. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):436. pmid:34488696
- 127. Daré LO, Bruand P-E, Gérard D, Marin B, Lameyre V, Boumédiène F, et al. Co-morbidities of mental disorders and chronic physical diseases in developing and emerging countries: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):304. pmid:30866883
- 128. Aissaoui N. The digital divide: a literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID-19. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. 2022;71(8/9):686–708.
- 129. Sanders CK, Scanlon E. The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion Through Social Work Advocacy. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work. 2021;6(2):130–43. pmid:33758780
- 130. Piers R, Williams JM, Sharpe H. Review: Can digital mental health interventions bridge the ’digital divide’ for socioeconomically and digitally marginalised youth? A systematic review. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2023;28(1):90–104. pmid:36510375
- 131. Western M, Armstrong M, Islam I, Morgan K, Jones U, Kelson M. The effectiveness of digital interventions for increasing physical activity in individuals of low socioeconomic status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2021;18(1):148. pmid:34753490
- 132. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Vanstone M, Brundisini F. Patient experiences of depression and anxiety with chronic disease: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2013;13(16):1–33. pmid:24228079
- 133. Vodermaier A, Linden W, MacKenzie R, Greig D, Marshall C. Disease stage predicts post-diagnosis anxiety and depression only in some types of cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 2011;105(12):1814–7. pmid:22095232
- 134. Olafiranye O, Jean-Louis G, Zizi F, Nunes J, Vincent M. Anxiety and cardiovascular risk: Review of Epidemiological and Clinical Evidence. Mind Brain. 2011;2(1):32–7. pmid:21822473
- 135. Meyerowitz-Katz G, Ravi S, Arnolda L, Feng X, Maberly G, Astell-Burt T. Rates of Attrition and Dropout in App-Based Interventions for Chronic Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e20283. pmid:32990635
- 136. Hesser H. Estimating causal effects of internet interventions in the context of nonadherence. Internet Interv. 2020;21:100346. pmid:32983907
- 137. Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e11. pmid:15829473
- 138. Linardon J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. Attrition and adherence in smartphone-delivered interventions for mental health problems: A systematic and meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2020;88(1):1–13. pmid:31697093
- 139. Baumel A, Muench F, Edan S, Kane JM. Objective User Engagement With Mental Health Apps: Systematic Search and Panel-Based Usage Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(9):e14567. pmid:31573916
- 140. Flett J, Fletcher B, Riordan B, Patterson T, Hayne H, Conner T. The peril of self-reported adherence in digital interventions: A brief example. Internet Interv. 2019;18:100267. pmid:31890620
- 141.
Schünemann H, Higgins J, Santesso N, Deeks J, Glasziou P, A, Guyatt G,. Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: In: Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors),, editor. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 63 (updated February 2022): Cochrane; 2022.
- 142. Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh I, Cutler J. Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(7):769–73. pmid:1619456