Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41243433›Full record

SynthesisPsychological medicine2025

Effectiveness of digital psychological and psychoeducational interventions to prevent anxiety: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cristina García-Huércano, Sonia Conejo-Cerón, Carmela Martínez-Vispo, Juan Ángel Bellón, Alberto Rodríguez-Morejón, Olaya Tamayo-Morales, Patricia Moreno-Peral

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Cristina García-Huércanohttps://ror.org/05n3asa33Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA Bionand Platform), Málaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5083-3447
Sonia Conejo-Cerónhttps://ror.org/05n3asa33Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA Bionand Platform), Málaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1357-2281
Carmela Martínez-VispoInstitute of Psychology (IPsiUS), https://ror.org/030eybx10University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8503-1791
Juan Ángel Bellónhttps://ror.org/05n3asa33Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA Bionand Platform), Málaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4268-4979
Alberto Rodríguez-Morejónhttps://ror.org/05n3asa33Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA Bionand Platform), Málaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1361-045X
Olaya Tamayo-MoralesResearch Network on Chronicity, Primary Care, Prevention and Health Promotion (RICAPPS).ORCID 0000-0003-1390-0959
Patricia Moreno-Peralhttps://ror.org/05n3asa33Biomedical Research Institute of Malaga (IBIMA Bionand Platform), Málaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4130-9090

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación PID2020-119652RA-100Instituto de Salud Carlos III CP19/00056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The high incidence of new cases of anxiety disorders highlights the need for scalable preventive interventions, which can be achieved through information and communication technologies. To our knowledge, no meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate purely digital preventive interventions for anxiety in all types of populations. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of digital interventions for the prevention of anxiety disorders. Systematic searches were conducted in six electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, OpenGrey, and CENTRAL) from inception to December 12, 2024. Inclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) psychological or psychoeducational digital interventions to prevent anxiety, and (3) all types of populations without anxiety at baseline of the study. A total of 15 studies (19 comparisons; 6093 participants) were included in the systematic review. One study was identified as an outlier and was therefore excluded from the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed a small effect in favor of preventive interventions among non-anxious and varied populations (standardized mean difference = -0.32, 95% confidence interval: -0.44 to -0.20; p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of this finding. We found no evidence of publication bias. Heterogeneity was high, however, a meta-regression that included one variable (country, the Netherlands) explained 100% of the variance. All RCTs, except two, had a high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence, according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, was very low. There is a need to develop and evaluate new digital preventive interventions with a rigorous methodology.

Indexed as

Anxiety DisordersPatient Education as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicanxietydigital healthpreventionrandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID41243433
PMCPMC13058651

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.