SynthesisJMIR formative research2026
Australian Digital Mental Health Services for Anxiety and Depression: Meta-Analysis and Comparison Study.
Synthesis in JMIR formative research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental Health Online, MindSpot, and THIS WAY UP are 3 Australian Government-funded digital mental health services (DMHSs). These services are free for consumers and deliver a range of (depression and anxiety disorder) psychological assessments and interventions using the internet, with or without clinician support. Objective: This study examines the uptake and effectiveness of these services. Methods: We used 3 data sources to examine the performance of the three DMHSs: (1) aggregated routinely collected service data to describe uptake of the services from January 2013 to December 2021, (2) peer-reviewed and gray literature reporting treatment outcomes, and (3) treatment outcome data from one evaluation conducted by Mental Health Online. The second and third data sources were used to analyze the effectiveness of the DMHSs compared to other mental health treatment programs (Australian primary, public, and low-intensity mental health care; UK stepped psychological care). We generated pooled mental health symptom (Cohen Results: The 3 DMHSs offered care to more than 282,000 consumers and therefore contributed to improving overall access to mental health care in Australia. Clinician-supported online treatment significantly improved the mental health of consumers who use these services (Mental Health Online, Cohen Conclusions: Mental Health Online, MindSpot, and THIS WAY UP are producing clinically significant improvement for consumers experiencing psychological distress and anxiety and depression symptoms. The magnitude of improvement produced by clinician-supported treatment is comparable with more resource-intensive face-to-face treatment options. Heterogeneity in the magnitude of improvements produced by the 3 DMHSs (and comparator interventions across levels of clinical need) indicates that findings should be interpreted with caution, particularly in relation to the populations for whom DMHSs may be most appropriate.
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.