ArticleClinical psychology in Europe2025
Attitudes and Expectations Towards Mental Health Interventions in the General Population: Comparing Face-to-Face Counseling, Blended Counseling, and Digital or On-Paper Self-Help.
Article in Clinical psychology in Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Model for Mental health Access and service use (CoMMA): A process model for technology-enhanced mental healthcare.Internet interventions · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital interventions are supported by a growing evidence base and have the potential to contribute to accessible and personalized mental healthcare services. When individuals seek help for mental health problems, various intervention options are available in a digital, face-to-face or on-paper format. However, it is important to understand what individuals find important for intervention selection and how they perceive different intervention options. Method: The study recruited 232 individuals for a cross-sectional online survey on (1) the relevance of 12 evaluation dimensions for mental health support, (2) whether self-help books, digital interventions, face-to-face counseling, and blended interventions would meet expectations, and (3) self-reported likelihood of use. Results: The most important dimensions for intervention selection were helpfulness, personal support, motivates to get better, and credibility. Face-to-face counseling was evaluated favorably for dimensions linked to intervention content (e.g., helpfulness), while self-help approaches were rated more positively for practical aspects (e.g., waiting time). Blended counseling received fairly similar dimension ratings as face-to-face counseling. Self-reported likelihood of use differed significantly between modalities despite large individual differences. Face-to-face interventions were most likely to be used, followed by blended counseling, with digital and on-paper self-help options sharing third place. Conclusion: The findings suggests that mere self-help (online or on paper) does not sufficiently meet the needs and is not the preferred choice for handling mental health problems for most individuals. If presented with the choice, individuals still prefer face-to-face counseling. Nevertheless, blended interventions can be a promising treatment option for the future.
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.