Efficacy of Virtual Care for Depressive Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

• Published in: JMIR mental health Vol. 10; p. e38955
• Main Authors: Schiller, Crystal Edler, Prim, Julianna, Bauer, Anna E, Lux, Linda, Lundegard, Laura Claire, Kang, Michelle, Hellberg, Samantha, Thompson, Katherine, Webber, Theresa, Teklezghi, Adonay, Pettee, Noah, Gaffney, Katherine, Hodgins, Gabrielle, Rahman, Fariha, Steinsiek, J Nikki, Modi, Anita, Gaynes, Bradley N
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada JMIR Publications 09.01.2023
• Subjects: Bias; Clinical significance; Decision making; Estimates; Industrialized nations; Intervention; Mental depression; Meta-analysis; Multimedia; Pandemics; Psychotherapy; Remission (Medicine); Review; Substance abuse treatment; Systematic review; United States > US; treatment; virtual; health intervention; mental health; therapy; meta-analysis; digital mental health; digital intervention; eHealth; efficacy; virtual care; health outcome; digital health; review; depressive disorder; virtual intervention; depression
• ISSN: 2368-7959; 2368-7959
• DOI: 10.2196/38955

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an epidemic of distress-related mental disorders such as depression, while simultaneously necessitating a shift to virtual domains of mental health care; yet, the evidence to support the use of virtual interventions is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of virtual interventions for depressive disorders by addressing three key questions: (1) Does virtual intervention provide better outcomes than no treatment or other control conditions (ie, waitlist, treatment as usual [TAU], or attention control)? (2) Does in-person intervention provide better outcomes than virtual intervention? (3) Does one type of virtual intervention provide better outcomes than another? We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases for trials published from January 1, 2010, to October 30, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials of adults with depressive disorders that tested a virtual intervention and used a validated depression measure. Primary outcomes were defined as remission (ie, no longer meeting the clinical cutoff for depression), response (ie, a clinically significant reduction in depressive symptoms), and depression severity at posttreatment. Two researchers independently selected studies and extracted data using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Risk of bias was evaluated based on Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality guidelines. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes. We identified 3797 references, 24 of which were eligible. Compared with waitlist, virtual intervention had higher odds of remission (OR 10.30, 95% CI 5.70-18.60; N=619 patients) and lower posttreatment symptom severity (SMD 0.81, 95% CI 0.52-1.10; N=1071). Compared with TAU and virtual attention control conditions, virtual intervention had higher odds of remission (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.10-3.35; N=512) and lower posttreatment symptom severity (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.42; N=573). In-person intervention outcomes were not significantly different from virtual intervention outcomes (eg, remission OR 0.84, CI 0.51-1.37; N=789). No eligible studies directly compared one active virtual intervention to another. Virtual interventions were efficacious compared with control conditions, including waitlist control, TAU, and attention control. Although the number of studies was relatively small, the strength of evidence was moderate that in-person interventions did not yield significantly better outcomes than virtual interventions for depressive disorders.