Table 2 Results of moderator analyses at post-intervention assessment.
From: Digital interventions to promote psychological resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mental distress | Positive mental health | Resilience factors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n/k | M(SMD) [95% CI], p | n/k | M(SMD) [95% CI], p | n/k | M(SMD) [95% CI], p | |
Sociodemographic characteristics | ||||||
Mean age | 74/132 | QM(1) = 1.98, p = 0.164 | 69/110 | QM(1) = 1.67, p = .0.201 | 40/57 | QM(1) = 0.00, p = 0.950 |
Gender (% women) | 82/144 | QM(1) = 0.00, p = 0.978 | 74/121 | QM(1) = 0.17, p = .0.681 | 42/59 | QM(1) = 0.49, p = 0.486 |
Population type (Military vs. University/College vs. Workplace) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 55/98 | QM(2) = 1.88, p = 0.163 | 47/72 | QM(1) = 0.06, p = 0.811 | 32/41 | QM(1) = 0.46, p = 0.638 |
Delivery format (eHealth vs. mHealth vs. mixed) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 85/150 | QM(2) = 2.18, p = 0.120 | 77/123 | QM(2) = 2.27, p = 0.111 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 1.51, p = 0.233 |
Theoretical foundation (CBT vs. Coping Literature vs. Mindfulness vs. Positive Psychology vs. mixed) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 56/101 | QM(4) = 1.19, p = 0.329 | 56/95 | QM(4) = 0.50, p = 0.734 | 37/56 | QM(4) = 0.84, p = .511 |
Guidance | ||||||
Unguided | 0.24 [0.16, 0.34], p < 0.001 | |||||
Guided | 0.44 [0.25, 0.64], p < 0.001 | |||||
Omnibus moderator test | 84/148 | QM(1) = 0.95, p = 0.332 | 77/123 | QM(1) = 2.72, p = 0.103 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 3.81, p = 0.058 |
Intervention type (standalone vs. blended interventions) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 84/149 | QM(1) = 0.26, p = 0.610 | 76/122 | QM(1) = 0.02, p = 0.897 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 0.20, p = 0.653 |
Degree of individualization (individualized vs. standardized) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 85/150 | QM(1) = 2.43, p = 0.123 | 77/123 | QM(1) = 2.25, p = 0.138 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 0.09, p = 0.769 |
Intervention intensity | ||||||
in weeks | 82/142 | QM(1) = 0.12, p = 0.729 | 77/123 | QM(1) = 0.98, p = 0.325 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 1.71, p = 0.198 |
Improvement over time | ||||||
Publication year | 85/150 | QM(1) = 0.86, p = 0.355 | 77/123 | QM(1) = 3.23, p = 0.076 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 0.39, p = 0.538 |
Type of control group | ||||||
No intervention/ waitlist | –0.30 [–0.39, –0.21], p < 0.001 | 0.38 [0.15, 0.60], p = 0.001 | ||||
Low-intensity active control | –0.31 [–0.45, –0.17], p < 0.001 | 0.22 [0.04, 0.40], p = 0.019 | ||||
High-intensity active control | –0.08 [–0.18, 0.01], p = 0.086 | 0.07 [–0.01, 0.15], p = 0.102 | ||||
Omnibus moderator test | 85/150 | QM(2) = 6.51, p = 0.002* | 77/123 | QM(2) = 4.16, p = 0.019* | 45/64 | QM(2) = 0.18, p = 0.835 |
COVID-19 context (before COVID-19 vs. during COVID-19) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 85/150 | QM(1) = 0.49, p = 0.488 | 77/123 | QM(1) = 1.12, p = 0.293 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 0.09, p = 0.763 |
Small digital component (small digital component vs. other) | ||||||
Omnibus moderator test | 84/149 | QM(1) = 0.51, p = 0.479 | 76/122 | QM(1) = 0.18, p = 0.675 | 45/64 | QM(1) = 0.22, p = 0.641 |
