Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39340312›Full record

SynthesisSchizophrenia bulletin2025

Efficacy of User Self-Led and Human-Supported Digital Health Interventions for People With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Urska Arnautovska, Mike Trott, Kathryn Jemimah Vitangcol, Alyssa Milton, Ellie Brown, Nicola Warren, Stefan Leucht, Joseph Firth, Dan Siskind

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Psychodermatology: Current Scope and Future Prospects.Indian dermatology online journal · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Application of AI Mind Mapping in Mental Health Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Urska ArnautovskaMedical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7780-8441
Mike TrottMedical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5978-3407
Kathryn Jemimah VitangcolMedical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6279-8033
Alyssa MiltonCentral Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4326-0123
Ellie BrownOrygen The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1645-5443
Nicola WarrenMedical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0805-1182
Stefan LeuchtDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, München, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4934-4352
Joseph FirthDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0618-2752
Dan SiskindMedical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2072-9216

Funding

NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellowship GNT1194635
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health interventions (DHIs) may enable low cost, scalable improvements in the quality of care for adults with schizophrenia. Given the fast-growing number of studies using these tools, this review aimed to assess the efficacy and feasibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DHIs among people with schizophrenia, focusing on human support.

designA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was conducted in January 2024 to identify relevant RCTs. Random effects meta-analyses were undertaken to evaluate the effects on psychosis symptoms, cognition, and other health-related outcomes.

resultsTwenty-six RCTs (n = 2481 participants) were included. Pooled recruitment and retention rates were 57.4% and 87.6%, respectively. DHIs showed no statistically significant effect sizes across all examined outcomes, including psychosis symptoms, depression, quality of life, global and social cognition, global and social functioning, and medication adherence. A third (34.6%) of DHIs were developed using co-design while the majority (70%) personalized the intervention to its users and 69.2% were deemed to be at high risk of bias. There were trends toward effects in favor of DHIs with human support for social cognition and quality of life.

conclusionsDHIs are feasible for people with schizophrenia and potentially useful for improving health outcomes, particularly when including human support. More high-quality studies are required to examine the benefits of human support within DHIs. Future research should examine the feasibility of sustained adherence and benefits from digital interventions, possibly incorporating human interaction complemented with artificial intelligence, in real-world clinical settings.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareSchizophreniaTelemedicineDigital HealthHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopiccomputereHealthmobile appspsychosisself-management

Identifiers

PMID39340312
PMCPMC12414553

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.