Table 5.

Outcomes of the controlled studies in the sample (standardized measures are abbreviated).

Study	Study design	Control	Sample size, N	Intervention	Measures	Significant outcomes
Olson et al [56]	Historically controlled	TAUa	163	Screening tool	Acceptance and quality of physician appointment survey; qualitative physician feedback	IGb more likely to discuss alcohol and tobacco use with physician but not mood disorders. IG increased acceptance of subsequent physician appointment
Yoon et al [91]	Historically controlled	TAU	301	Screening tool	Screen for unhealthy drinking behaviors and alcohol use disorders; motivation to change and referral interest survey; acceptance survey	CGc used to compare response rate only (responses were comparable). Only 16% of the IG had unhealthy drinking habits. Of these, 14% were interested in further help, and 40% would cut back on their own
Bommelé et al [78]	NRCTd	NTCCe	757	WPf	POg: receptivity to information, motivation to change, self-efficacy and referral interest survey; SOh: cigarettes per day and quit attempts	IG more receptive to information than CG after the intervention but not at the 2-week or 2-month follow-up. IG had reduced smoking at all time points. No differences in quit attempts or referral
Brunette et al [66]	NRCT	Wait-list	41	WP	PO: treatment seeking and motivation to change survey (verified by medical records); SO: FTNDi; 1 item from SCSj; ATSk	IG more likely to have taken action toward change than CG (eg, attempting to quit, meeting with a clinician to discuss, or start treatment)
Strassle et al [68]	RCT	No intervention	68	Video	PO: return for second session of TTl; SO: SCL-90m; IIP-32n; CASF-Po; therapist measures: GAFp; CASF-Tq	No differences between IG and CG in adherence to TT, therapeutic alliance, or TT outcomes (all clients had high adherence to TT)
Ebert et al [14]	RCT	No intervention	128	Video	PO: acceptance survey; SO: expectations, social opinions, internet concerns, help-seeking attitudes, and web-based therapy literacy survey	IG had higher acceptance, expectations, and literacy and lesser internet concerns than CG. No differences in social opinions or help-seeking attitudes
Ebert et al [83]	RCT	No intervention	1374	Screening tool	PO: intention to seek help survey; moderators: CIDISr; AUDITs; CSSRt; SITBIu; subjective health, lifetime and current treatment use, intention to use mental health services, barriers to treatment use, and readiness to change survey	IG had higher intentions to seek help than CG. Intervention was more effective for those with panic disorder and worse physical health and those who were nonheterosexual. No effect of intervention for those in the action stage of change
Soucy et al [89]	RCT	No intervention	231	WP	PO: CQv; TT lessons accessed; GAD-7w; PHQ-9x; SO: motivation to engage in TT survey; acceptance survey; K10y; SDSz	IG spent longer in TT than did CG. IG had higher anxiety and perceived disability at post-TT period than did CG. No differences in motivation or acceptance
Christensen et al [62]	RCT	NTCC	414	2 IGs: Waa and WP	CES-Dab; help- and treatment-seeking survey	Both W and WP reduced depression symptoms compared with CG. W less likely to seek informal help than CG. WP more likely to use certain evidence-based treatments
Reis and Brown [63]	RCT	NTCC	125	Video	Therapist measure: TSQac	IG had lower dropout from TT than did CG
Costin et al [64]	RCT	NTCC	348	2 IGs: both automated emails and W	PO: AHSQad; informal help-seeking survey; SO: GHSQae; beliefs about help-seeking survey; depression and help-seeking literacy survey; CES-D; acceptance survey	No differences among IGs or between IGs and CG in help-seeking behavior, intentions, literacy, or depression symptoms. IGs had more positive beliefs about formal help than did CG
Johansen et al [67]	RCT	NTCC	105	2 IGs: WAaf video and EAag video	Acceptance survey; PANASah; WAI-Sai (client and therapist); return for second session of TT	WA had higher negative affect and lower therapist-rated alliance than CG. No difference in client-rated alliance among IGs. No differences in adherence to TT between IGs and CG
Taylor-Rodgers and Batterham [72]	RCT	NTCC	67	WP	PO: A-Litaj; D-Litak; LSSal; DSSam; GASSan; SOSSao; ATSPPH-SFap; GHSQ; SO: PHQ-9; GAD-7; acceptance and adherence survey	IG had increased anxiety literacy, help-seeking attitudes and intentions, and reduced depression stigma compared with CG. No differences in symptoms, acceptance, or adherence
Griffiths et al [79]	RCT	NTCC	83	WP	PO: GHSQ; SO: ATSPPH-SF; SA-Litaq; SASS-Iar; perceived need for treatment and interest in TT; acceptance survey	IG had higher literacy, perceived need, and positive attitudes toward treatment than did CG. No differences in help-seeking intentions or stigma
King et al [74]	RCT	STCC	76	Screening tool and messaging	Perceived need for help and treatment use survey; 2 items from DDSas; readiness to access help survey	IG had higher readiness to access help and use treatment and lower stigma than did CG at the 2-month follow-up
Batterham et al [75]	RCT	STCC	2773	Screening tool	PO: AHSQ; SO: PHQ-9; SOPHSat 2 items from GHSQ; AQoL-4Dau; self-reported days out of role	IG had higher study attrition than did CG. For social anxiety, IG had lower treatment use and intentions to seek help than did CG, no differences found for depression
Peter et al [87]	RCT	STCC	805	2 IGs: screening tools—IMav and NMaw	PO: choice between BBGSax and 3 items from GBQay; moderators: gambling history, psychological distress, and treatment interest survey	IM more likely to complete gambling screener than NM or CG
Titov et al [65]	RCT	Intervention control	108	2 IGs: WPs—Education and Education+Motivation	PO: SIASaz; SPSba; SO: PHQ-9; K-10, SDS, and CEQbb; literacy and motivation to change survey; time spent, log-ins, and homework downloads of TT	Education+Motivation had higher use of TT than Education. No differences in TT outcomes or acceptability. No differences in motivation to change
Tobias et al [90]	RCT	Intervention control	267	2 IGs: WPs—Education and Education+Motivation	Motivation for individual treatment steps, attitudes toward and intentions to seek treatment, perceived ability to engage in treatment seeking, and treatment use survey; CSQ-8bc	Education+Motivation had improved treatment-seeking attitudes and behaviors, compared with Education. Both groups improved on all outcomes
Brunette et al [86]	RCT	Intervention control	162	2 IGs: WPs—IWPbd and DEPbe	PO: treatment use (verified by medical records); SO: expired carbon monoxide; TFBbf (quit attempts); PUEUSbg	No differences between IWP and DEP in TT use, quit attempts, or abstinence (both groups had high use of TT)
Denison-Day et al [54]	RCT	TAU	313	WP	PO: attendance at initial assessment appointment; SO: use of TT, acceptance, and motivation (interview)	No differences between IG and CG in attendance at initial appointment. Only 34% of the IG used the intervention, and of these, 98% attended the appointment
Krampe et al [80]	RCT	TAU	220	Screening tool	PO: treatment use; SO: URICAbh; BSI-GSIbi	IG had lower treatment use and worse symptoms than CG. IG and CG were comparable for those with high readiness to change scores
Keller et al [52]	RCT	Wait-list	320	3 IGs: videos—7 minutes, 13 minutes, and 17 minutes	SSOSHbj; stigma survey	Only the 17-minute IG reduced stigma compared with CG
Hötzel et al [71]	RCT	Wait-list	212	WP	PO: SOCQ-EDbk; SO: P-CEDbl; SESbm; RSESbn; EDE-Qbo	IG had higher motivation to change, self-esteem, and symptom improvement than CG. No differences in motivation to begin treatment

^aTAU: treatment as usual.

^bIG: intervention group.

^cCG: control group.

^dNRCT: nonrandomized controlled trial.

^eNTCC: nonspecific treatment component controls.

^fWP: web-based program.

^gPO: primary outcomes.

^hSO: secondary outcomes.

ⁱFTND: Fagerström test for nicotine dependence.

^jSCS: Stage of Change Scale.

^kATS: Attitudes Toward Smoking Scale

^lTT: target treatment.

^mSCL-90: Symptom Checklist-90-Revised.

ⁿIIP-32: Inventory of Interpersonal problems-32.

^oCASF-P: Combined Alliance Short Form-Patient version.

^pGAF: Global Assessment of Functioning Scale.

^qCASF-T: Combined Alliance Short Form-Therapist version.

^rCIDIS: Composite International Diagnostic Interview Screening Scales.

^sAUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.

^tCSSR: Columbia Suicidal Severity Rating Scale.

^uSITBI: Self Injurious Thoughts and Behaviors Interview.

^vCQ: Change Questionnaire.

^wGAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item.

^xPHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item.

^yK-10: Kessler 10-item.

^zSDS: Sheehan Disability Scales.

^aaW: website.

^abCES-D: Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale.

^acTSQ: Termination Status Questionnaire.

^adAHSQ: Actual Help Seeking Questionnaire.

^aeGHSQ: General Help Seeking Questionnaire.

^afWA: working alliance.

^agEA: experimental acceptance.

^ahPANAS: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.

^aiWAI-S: Working Alliance Inventory.

^ajA-Lit: Anxiety Literacy Scale.

^akD-Lit: Depression Literacy Scale.

^alLSS: Literacy of Suicide Scale.

^amDSS: Depression Stigma Scale.

^anGASS: Generalised Anxiety Stigma Scale.

^aoSOSS: Stigma of Suicide Scale short form.

^apATSPPH-SF: Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Help Short Form Scale.

^aqSA-Lit: Social Anxiety Literacy Questionnaire.

^arSASS-I: Social Anxiety Stigma Scale.

^asDDS: Discrimination-Devaluation Scale.

^atSOPHS: Social Phobia Screener.

^auAQoL-4D: Assessment of Quality of Life.

^avIM: interactive message.

^awNM: noninteractive message.

^axBBGS: Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen.

^ayGBQ: Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire.

^azSIAS: Social Interaction Anxiety Scale.

^baSPS: Social Phobia Scale.

^bbCEQ: Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire.

^bcCSQ-8: Client Satisfaction Questionnaire.

^bdIWP: interactive web-based program.

^beDEP: digital education pamphlet.

^bfTFB: Timeline Follow-Back method.

^bgPUEUS: Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use Scale.

^bhURICA: University of Rhode Island Change Assessment.

^biBSI-GSI: Global Severity Index of the Brief Symptom Inventory.

^bjSSOSH: Self-Stigma of Seeking Help Scale.

^bkSOCQ-ED: Stages of Change Questionnaire for Eating Disorders.

^blP-CED: Pros and Cons of Eating Disorders Scale.

^bmSES: Self-Efficacy Scale.

^bnRSES: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

^boEDE-Q: eating disorder symptomatology.