The article reflects on the findings regarding the effects of new mobile- and internet-based psychological methods for self-harm in adolescents and adults. The topic covers a recent issue provided that the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing level of isolation has contributed to the increase in the number of people suffering from depression and anxiety. Thus, the need for digital assistance to tackle these issues has also increased, however, as the article points out these “interventions should not compromise effectiveness, acceptability, or equitable access”. In total, 22 papers contributed to the review, which was ultimately concluded with limited evidence to the effectiveness of the abovementioned interventions and with no major difference between the modalities.
The review scrutinizes the outcomes of the different technologies and their connection to self-harm, putting a greater emphasis on the adolescent population and the potential effects of the supporting inventions on the same group.
During the procedure behind the study, the researchers engaged in gathering evidence and controlling trials of interventions, as well as searching different electronic databases looking for evidence and valuable samples. The study not only presented data on self-harm behaviour among adolescents, but it also “explored effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility.”
Altogether, 22 eligible trials had been identified, involving more than 2000 adult and adolescent participants. “Outcomes measured included frequency or occurrence of repeat self-harm, or degree of suicidal ideation, using a range of validated and unvalidated measures, and measures of acceptability.” The article also presents a table on the interventions, displaying them according to their modalities, i.e. the form of text message, website or mobile application.
In conclusion, the most prominent outcomes of the study presented
- limited evidence to support the effectiveness of new interventions,
- no superiority between the modalities,
- and that mobile and internet-based interventions are more accepted.
With regards to the plausibility of the study, both its limitations (exclusion of non-English papers, the relatively small amount of papers and the heterogeneity of the interventions) and its implications (concerns over the lack of a more effective face-to-face assessment, etc.) are briefly discussed in the article.
Even though the review might not present groundbreaking findings to support mobile- and internet-based interventions, it points out the potential opportunities with regards to identifiable components and sets up a framework for local development and future national collaborations.