ArticleInternet interventions2026
Real-world data on uptake and use of digital mental health interventions among waitlisted patients with various mental disorders.
Article in Internet interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital mental health interventions (DMHI) have the potential to provide patients awaiting outpatient psychotherapy with a valuable and immediate treatment option to bridge long waiting periods. However, randomized controlled trials concerning these interventions are marred by high attrition rates and low adherence, and research on the implementation of these interventions in real-world settings is scarce. The present study aims to provide real-world data on the uptake and use of prescribed DMHI, as well as the effect of DMHI use on psychological well-being. Method: 150 patients with various mental disorders awaiting face-to-face psychotherapy were included in this preregistered study. All patients received a prescription for a diagnosis-specific DMHI to bridge the waiting period. Structured telephone interviews were conducted to assess uptake of the prescription, use of the DMHI, and psychological well-being four and 12 weeks after inclusion. Results: 56% of the patients reported an uptake of the DMHI prescription. The percentage of patients who actually used the DMHI was lower than for uptake (29%). Patients who expressed interest in the use of DMHI, higher treatment expectations, and lower psychological well-being were more likely to use the DMHI. A linear mixed model indicated a significant improvement in psychological well-being among DMHI users. Conclusion: The findings of the present study underscore that the implementation of DMHI in real-world settings is hindered by low uptake rates and even lower utilization. To improve DMHI use, it is essential to incorporate potential mediating factors, such as treatment expectations, into future research.
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.