Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40033658›Full record

SynthesisEarly intervention in psychiatry2025

Digital Mental Health Interventions for University Students With Mental Health Difficulties: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Alba Madrid-Cagigal, Carmen Kealy, Courtney Potts, Maurice D Mulvenna, Molly Byrne, Margaret M Barry, Gary Donohoe

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

Synthesis in Early intervention in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Alba Madrid-CagigalSchool of Psychology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4824-8307
Carmen KealyHealth Promotion Research Centre, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Courtney PottsSchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Belfast, UK.
Maurice D MulvennaSchool of Computing, Ulster University, Belfast, UK.
Molly ByrneSchool of Psychology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Margaret M BarryHealth Promotion Research Centre, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Gary DonohoeSchool of Psychology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

Atlantic Futures North South Research Program 422560
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile third-level educational institutions have long provided counselling, a sharp rise in demand has led to limited access to mental health supports for many students, including those with ongoing difficulties. Digital mental health interventions represent one response to this unmet need, given the potential low cost and scalability associated with no-to-low human resources involved.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature examining effectiveness of digital mental health interventions for university students with ongoing mental health difficulties.

methodsThe following databases were searched: PubMed, EBSCOhost (CINHAHL/PsycINFO/PsycArticles) and Web of Science. Two-armed randomised-control trials were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted and standardised mean differences were calculated. Effect sizes were then compared in terms of therapeutic approach, and whether interventions were fully automated or guided interventions. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504265.

resultsThirty four eligible studies were included in this narrative synthesis, of which 21 randomised-controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis indicated an overall medium effect size in favour of digital interventions for both depression (Cohen's d = 0.55), and anxiety (Cohen's d = 0. 46). Of note, for anxiety outcomes, fully automated interventions appeared more effective (d = 0.55) than guided interventions (d = 0.35).

conclusionsDigital mental health interventions are associated with beneficial effects for college students when measured in terms of anxiety and depression symptom severity. For anxiety, fully automated interventions may be more effective than guided interventions to reduce symptom severity.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersStudentsTelemedicineHumansUniversitiesdigital mental health interventionsmental health difficultiesuniversity students

Identifiers

PMID40033658
PMCPMC11876723

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.