1,860
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review Article

Are digital interventions effective in reducing suicidal ideation and self-harm? A systematic review

, , , , &
Pages 207-216 | Received 15 Mar 2019, Accepted 28 Dec 2019, Published online: 28 Jan 2020
 

Abstract

Background: There is a significant lack of outcomes research examining the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing suicidal ideation and self-harm.

Aims: To systematically review the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing suicidal ideation and self-harm in adult populations. The possible mediating effects of depression are also discussed.

Methods: The databases Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, IEEEXplore, ACM and CRESP were searched. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias using standard assessment criteria.

Results: Fourteen RCTs were reviewed, reporting data on 3455 participants. Although findings were more consistent for the effectiveness of online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), Mindfulness-Based CBT and Dialectical Behavioural Therapy, there was insufficient research to consider any as evidence-based treatments for suicidal ideation and self-harm.

Conclusions: Digital interventions for suicidal ideation and self-harm can be a safe and acceptable option for individuals unwilling or unable to access face-to-face interventions. However, further research is needed to understand the types of interventions that could support people and the risk-benefit ratio of digital interventions for these individuals.

Disclosure statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest, On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author also confirms that our manuscript is a systematic review and that all researchers have followed the PRISMA guidance. The review protocol has not been published on Prospero.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.