ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Digital single-session interventions for depression and self-injurious thoughts and behaviours in young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Usage Time: Rethinking Therapeutic Dose and Effect in Digital Therapeutics.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- Reducing Parental Accommodation in Neurodiverse Families: Adaptation of a Digital Single-Session Intervention.Child psychiatry and human development · 2026Article
- Randomized trial of a single-session digital intervention targeting emotion-related beliefs and emotion regulation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the use of single session interventions in child and adolescent mental health services in England: a freedom of information-based study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Consensus derived client outcomes and clinician actions for youth online chat mental health services: a Delphi study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adolescents and young adults are an at-risk population for self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITBs) and depression. Single-session interventions (SSIs) offer a promising solution for at-risk young people, particularly for early intervention. Digital formats of SSIs (D-SSIs) have emerged, which show promise for scalable prevention and early intervention. This systematic review primarily aimed to examine the effectiveness of existing D-SSIs for reducing SITBs and/or depression, and their proximal risk factors. Methods: This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42025636566). PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to April 14, 2025. Included studies described original research outlining the effectiveness, acceptability, and/or feasibility of individual-level D-SSIs for young people (aged 10-24) intended to reduce SITBs and/or depressive symptoms, or proximal risk factors for these conditions. Summary data were extracted from published reports, and missing information requested from authors prior to analysis. Findings: From 1694 potential studies, 22 articles describing 18 unique D-SSIs were eligible for inclusion (total participants Interpretation: There is evidence that D-SSIs yield significant and sustained reductions in depressive symptoms among young people. While evidence for reducing SITBs is limited, D-SSIs demonstrate acceptability and feasibility for young people, and therefore potential for enhancing prevention and early intervention efforts. Funding: The study was supported by funding from Suicide Prevention Australia (Grant Number: #RG00182) and Michelle Torok is funded by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT2007731).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.