Who benefits from guided internet-based interventions? A systematic review of predictors and moderators of treatment outcome.

Journal Information

Full Title: Internet Interv

Abbreviation: Internet Interv

Country: Unknown

Publisher: Unknown

Language: N/A

Publication Details

Subject Category: Health Care Sciences & Services

Available in Europe PMC: Yes

Available in PMC: Yes

PDF Available: No

Transparency Score
3/6
50.0% Transparent
Transparency Indicators
Click on green indicators to view evidence text
Core Indicators
Data Sharing
Code Sharing
Evidence found in paper:

"Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper."

Funding Disclosure
Evidence found in paper:

"This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (). It has been registered in the PROSPERO registry: CRD42021242305. The review protocol may be obtained from the first author. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been conducted on predictors or moderators of treatment outcome across diagnoses in guided internet-based interventions (IBIs) for adults. To identify who benefits from this specific format and therein inform future research on improving patient-treatment fit, we aimed to aggregate results of relevant studies. 2100 articles, identified by searching the databases PsycInfo, Ovid Medline, and Pubmed and through snowballing, were screened in April/May 2021 and October 2022. Risk of bias and intra- and interrater reliability were assessed. Variables were grouped by predictor category, then synthesized using vote counting based on direction of effect. N = 60 articles were included in the review. Grouping resulted in 88 predictors/moderators, of which adherence, baseline symptoms, education, age, and gender were most frequently assessed. Better adherence, treatment credibility, and working alliance emerged as conclusive predictors/moderators for better outcome, whereas higher baseline scores predicted more reliable change but higher post-treatment symptoms. Results of all other predictors/moderators were inconclusive or lacked data. Our review highlights that it is currently difficult to predict, across diagnoses, who will benefit from guided IBIs. Further rigorous research is needed to identify predictors and moderators based on a sufficient number of studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021242305."

Open Access
Paper is freely available to read
Additional Indicators
Replication
Novelty Statement
Assessment Info

Tool: rtransparent

OST Version: N/A

Last Updated: Aug 05, 2025