Table 1.
Summary of results.
| Study, year | Results | ||
| An et al, 2013 [18] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Substance use (smoking) | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 456; unguided, 473; control; 476 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (30-day smoking abstinence), % | Nonclinician, 14%; unguided, 11%; control, 9% | |
| Arjadi et al, 2018 [19] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Depression | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 159; control, 154 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 8.5 (5.74); control, 10.83 (6.21) | |
| Day et al, 2013 [20] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Depression | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 33; control (delayed access), 33 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale depression score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 10.43 (4.49); control, 14.6 (9.51) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Nonclinician, 61%; control, N/Aa (adherence outcomes unreported) | |
|
|
Process outcome | Usefulness | |
|
|
Results | The average usefulness rating of the overall modules was 6.78/10 (ranging from 1, “not useful at all,” to 10, “extremely useful”). | |
| Dirkse et al, 2020 [21] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Depression | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 41; unguided, 42 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 4.83 (2.7); unguided, 5.51 (4.5) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Nonclinician, 93%; unguided, 81% | |
|
|
Process outcome | Satisfaction | |
|
|
Results | A total of 85% of unguided and 90% of nonclinician-guided participants were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the course (no significant difference), 93% of unguided and 100% of nonclinician-guided participants were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the quality of the lessons and the materials (no significant difference); nonclinician-guided participants had significantly higher levels of satisfaction with the level of support, though both groups had relatively high satisfaction (96% of participants overall were “satisfied” or “very satisfied”). | |
| Farrer et al, 2011 [22] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Depression | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 41; unguided, 38; control, 35 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 21 (12.4); unguided, 24.4 (13.6); control, 35.1 (13.9) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (minimum dose: 3/5 modules), % | Nonclinician, 37.7%; unguided, 31.6%; control, N/A (received no intervention) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Nonclinician, 17.8%; unguided, 15.8%; control, N/A (received no intervention) | |
| Flynn et al, 2020 [23] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Mental well-being | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 30; unguided, 30 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 48.43 (12.66); unguided, 42.88 (9.66) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Nonclinician, 52%; unguided, 43% | |
| Heber et al, 2016 [24] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Stress | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 132; control (delayed access), 132 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Perceived Stress Scale-10 score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 17.88 (6.17); control, 22.96 (6.07) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Nonclinician, 70.5%; control, N/A (adherence outcomes unreported) | |
|
|
Process outcome | Satisfaction | |
|
|
Results | A total of 92.2% of participants were “satisfied in an overall, general sense” (ie, either “very satisfied” or “mostly satisfied”). | |
| Kobak et al, 2015 [25] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Obsessive compulsive disorder | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Clinician, 31; nonclinician, 28; unguided, 28 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score), mean (SD) | Clinician, 15.32 (7.04); nonclinician, 15.61 (5.88); unguided, 16.32 (6.97) | |
|
|
Process outcomes | Satisfaction, usability | |
|
|
Results | A total of 98% of participants “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement that “they were satisfied with bt steps.” For usability, the mean total system usability score was 83.5/100 (between “good” and “excellent”). | |
| Possemato et al, 2019b [26] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Posttraumatic stress disorder and hazardous drinking | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 15; unguided, 15 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist—Military score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 41.78 (14.90); unguided, 43.16 (13.42) | |
|
|
Process outcome | Satisfaction | |
|
|
Results | A total of 78% of participants were “very satisfied.” | |
| Proudfoot et al, 2012 [27] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Bipolar disorder (perception of illness) | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 139; unguided, 141; control, 139 | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (minimum dose; 4/8 module workbooks) | Nonclinician, 79.9%; unguided, 69.1%; control, N/A (received no intervention) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules) | 38.8% across 3 groups | |
| Robinson et al, 2010 [28] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Generalized anxiety disorder | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Clinician, 47; nonclinician, 50; control (delayed access), 48 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (General Anxiety Disorder-7 score), mean (SD) | Clinician, 5.55 (4.73); nonclinician, 6.02 (3.43); control, 11.25 (4.70) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Clinician, 74%, nonclinician, 80%; control, N/A (received no intervention) | |
|
|
Process outcome | Satisfaction | |
|
|
Results | A total of 87% of participants in the nonclinician-guided and clinician-guided groups were either “very satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the overall program (no significant difference). | |
| Rosso et al, 2017 [29] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Depression | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Nonclinician, 37; control, 40 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 score), mean (SD) | Nonclinician, 9.17 (6.92), control, 14.05 (5.34) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Nonclinician, 92%; control, 75% | |
| Titov et al, 2010 [30] | |||
|
|
Targeted disorder | Depression | |
|
|
Subjects for each study condition, n | Clinician, 46; nonclinician, 41; control, 40 | |
|
|
Effectiveness outcome (Beck Depression Inventory-II score), mean (SD) | Clinician, 14.59 (11.12); nonclinician, 15.29 (9.81); control, 26.15 (10.14) | |
|
|
Adherence outcome (completion of all modules), % | Clinician, 80%; nonclinician, 80%; control, N/A (adherence outcomes unreported) | |
|
|
Process outcome | Satisfaction | |
|
|
Results | A total of 87% of participants in the nonclinician-guided or clinician-guided groups were either “very satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” with the overall program (no significant difference). | |
aN/A: not applicable.
bPossemato reported a nonclinician intervention retention rate of 93% and unguided intervention retention rate of 73% but did not define “intervention retention.”