Clinical efficacy and economic evaluation of online cognitive behavioral therapy for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Leading cause of disability worldwide, depression is the most prevalent mental disorder with growing societal costs. As mental health services demand often outweighs provision, accessible treatment options are needed. Our systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the clinical efficacy and economic evidence for the use of online cognitive behavioral therapy (oCBT) as an accessible treatment solution for depression.

Areas covered: Electronic databases were searched for controlled trials published between 2006 and 2016. Of the reviewed 3,324 studies, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in the efficacy meta-analysis. The systematic review identified five oCBT economic evaluations. Therapist-supported oCBT was equivalent to face-to-face CBT at improving depressive symptoms and superior to treatment-as-usual, waitlist control, and attention control. Depression severity, number of sessions, or support did not affect efficacy. From a healthcare provider perspective, oCBT tended to show greater costs with greater benefits in the short term, relative to comparator treatments.

Expert commentary: Although efficacious, further economic evidence is required to support the provision of oCBT as a cost-effective treatment for depression. Economic evaluations that incorporate a societal perspective will better account for direct and indirect treatment costs. Nevertheless, oCBT shows promise of effectively improving depressive symptoms, considering limited mental healthcare resources.

KEYWORDS:

• Depression
• economic evaluation
• internet intervention
• meta-analysis
• online cognitive behavioral therapy
• systematic review

Declaration of interest

All authors have received support from the University of Limerick in form of salaries or bursaries. The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.