Digital interventions for depression and anxiety in older adults: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One in five older adults experience symptoms of depression and anxiety. Digital mental health interventions are promising in their ability to provide researchers, mental health professionals, clinicians, and patients with personalised tools for assessing their behaviour and seeking consultation, treatment, and peer support. This systematic review looks at existing randomised controlled trial studies on digital mental health interventions for older adults. Four factors have been found that contributed to the success of digital mental health interventions: (1) ease of use; (2) opportunities for social interactions; (3) having human support; and (4) having the digital mental health interventions tailored to the participants' needs. The findings also resulted in methodological considerations for future randomised controlled trials on digital mental health interventions: (1) having a healthy control group and an intervention group with clinical diagnoses of mental illness; (2) collecting data on the support given throughout the duration of the interventions; (3) obtaining qualitative and quantitative data to measure the success of the interventions; and (4) conducting follow-up interviews and surveys up to 1 year post-intervention to determine the long-term outcomes. The factors that were identified in this systematic review can provide future digital mental health interventions researchers, health professionals, clinicians, and patients with the tools to design, develop, and use successful interventions for older users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".