Mechanisms of Change in Digital Health Interventions for Mental Disorders in Youth: Systematic Review

Background: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are efficacious for several mental disorders in youth; however, integrated, evidence-based knowledge about the mechanisms of change in these interventions is lacking. Objective: This systematic review aims to comprehensively evaluate studies on mediators and mechanisms of change in different DHIs for common mental disorders in children and adolescents. Methods: A systematic literature search of the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO was conducted, complemented by backward and forward searches. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, extracted the data, and rated the methodological quality of eligible studies (ie, risk of bias and 8 quality criteria for process research). Results: A total of 25 studies that have evaluated 39 potential mediators were included in this review. Cognitive mediators were the largest group of examined intervening variables, followed by a broad range of emotional and affective, interpersonal, parenting behavior, and other mediators. The mediator categories with the highest percentages of significant intervening variables were the groups of affective mediators (4/4, 100%) and combined cognitive mediators (13/19, 68%). Although more than three-quarters of the eligible studies met 5 or more quality criteria, causal conclusions have been widely precluded. Conclusions: The findings of this review might guide the empirically informed advancement of DHIs, contributing to improved intervention outcomes, and the discussion of methodological recommendations for process research might facilitate mediation studies with more pertinent designs, allowing for conclusions with higher causal certainty in the future.

Automated summary

This systematic review examined 25 studies on mediators in DHIs for mental disorders in children and adolescents, finding cognitive mediators to be the most studied group with emotional, interpersonal, and other mediators also considered. While most studies met quality criteria, causal conclusions were still limited.