Table 1.

General characteristics of studies (N=16).

Author, year of publication; countrya	Study design	Type of study	Intervention type (intervention name)
Lappalainen et al, 2013 [15]; Finland	RCTb	Feasibility	Web portal (P4 Well)
Todkill and Powell, 2013 [16]; United Kingdom	Qualitative study	Evaluation of design	Web based (MoodGym)
Morris et al, 2015 [17]; United States	RCT	Efficacy	Web based (Panoply)
Clarke et al, 2016 [18]; Australia	Process data study	Evaluation of usability engagement and efficacy	Web based (myCompass)
Laurie and Blandford, 2016 [19]; United Kingdom	Qualitative study	Gain insight into user experience	Mobile app (Headspace)
Zarski et al, 2016 [20]; Germany	Process data study	Evaluation of use in 3 intervention groups of RCTs	Web based and mobile app (GET.ON Stress)
Chou et al, 2017 [21]; United States	Process data study	Evaluation of design	Web based and mobile app (SuperBetter)
Dryman et al, 2017 [22]; United States	Process data study	Evaluation of use, engagement, and efficacy	Web based (Joyable)
Ly et al, 2017 [23]; Sweden	RCT	Feasibility	Mobile app (Shim)
Bakker et al, 2018 [24]; Australia	Cross-sectional	Evaluation of usability and feasibility	Mobile app (MoodMission)
Morrison et al, 2018 [25]; United Kingdom	Observational study	Efficacy	Web based and mobile app (Healthy Paths and Healthy Mind)
Song et al, 2018 [26]; Canada	Process data study	Evaluation of use and engagement	Web based (Walk Along)
Birk and Mandryk, 2019 [27]; United States	RCT	Efficacy	Web based (NRc)
Carter et al, 2019 [28]; United States	Cross-sectional	Evaluation of design	Mobile app (NewCope)
Przybylko et al, 2019 [29]; Australia	RCT	Efficacy	Web based (The Lift Project)
Renfrew et al, 2020 [30]; Australia	RCT	Comparison of 3 modes of engagement strategies	Web based and mobile app (MyWellness)

^aCountry of the corresponding author.

^bRCT: randomized controlled trial.

^cNR: not reported.