Skip to main content

Table 1 Randomised controlled trials included in the review ( n= 6)

From: A systematic review of help-seeking interventions for depression, anxiety and general psychological distress

#

Author

Loc

Age

N

N

Intervention comparisons

Delivery mode

Provider

Setting & recruitment

Length

Help-seeking measures

Post-test effect size

Follow-up effect size

Quality rating

    

Randomised

Post, FU

         

1

Christensen

AUS

18-52

N = 525

Post N = 414

Two web-based depression interventions with weekly telephone calls from interviewer (indicated for participants K-10 ≥12) vs. control:

Online (Web plus telephone)

Interviewer

Community survey sent to random selection of 27,000 people on the Australian electoral roll (compulsory registration), Response rate: 6130 (22.7%);

6 wks

(1) Behaviour – Self-reported professional treatments sought in the past 2 months to cope with depression (includes GP, counsellors, psychologists, anti-depressants, CBT, self-help books)

6 weeks:

6 months:

6/9

 

(2006) [37]

          

(1) MG = .24a

(1) MG = .13

 
   

M = 36.8

BP = 165

BP = 136

      

(1) BP = -.01

(1) BP = .02

(3, 4, 5)

   

SD = 9.3

MG = 182

MG = 121

         
    

C = 178

C = 157

         
     

FU N = 346

BP = BluePages (MHL for depression + feedback).

        
     

BP = 114

MG = MoodGYM (CBT program for depression + feedback).

  

657 (2.4%) met inclusion criteria.

     
     

MG = 102

         
     

C = 130

         
      

C = Control (weekly telephone calls from interviewer only about lifestyle factors that may influence depression).

        

2

Costin (2009)

AUS

19-24

N = 348

N = 298

Two e-card interventions vs. control:

Online (Email)

Researcher

Community survey sent to 12,000 young people aged 19-23 years on the Australian electoral roll, (compulsory registration), Response rate: 1764 (14.7%); 1189 (9.9%) met inclusion criteria.

3 wks

(1) Behaviour – sought help in the past 6 wks from formal sources (AHSQ)

6 weeks:

NR

9/9

 

[40]

          

BS and EH combined by author -

  
   

M = 21.4

BS = 114

BS = 97

         
   

SD = 1.5

EH = 117

EH = 97

BS = Basic (basic MHL for depression and help-seeking sources information).

        
    

C = 117

C = 104

      

(1) BS/EH = -.02

  
           

(2) Intentions – to seek help from formal sources (GHSQ)

(2) BS/EH = .03

  
      

EH = Enhanced (enhanced MHL for depression and help-seeking sources information).

     

(3) BS/EH = .53a

  
      

C = Control (general health issue information).

    

(3) Beliefs e – rated any formal source as helpful

   

3

Buckley

AUS

18-79

N = 80

Post N = 80

One 30 minute video vs. control:

In-person (Video)

Assistants (not directly involved in study) d

University student volunteers (30) and community members (50) volunteering from specified groups (e.g., teachers, church) d

30 mins

(1) Attitudes (ATSPPHS)

30 minutes:

2 weeks:

5/9

 

(2005) [44]

          

(1) VID = .34b

(1) VID = .56b

 
   

M = 40.6

VID = 39

VID = 39

        

(1, 2, 4, 9)

   

SD = 19.2

C = 41

C = 41

VID = Video [based on cognitive learning theory, first person accounts of psychotherapy experiences (consumer contact), MHL, destigmatisation].

        
     

FU N = 63

         
     

VID = 29

         
     

C = 34

         
      

C = Control (30 minute video of “the self” with no mental health treatment mentioned).

        

4

Donohue

USA

17-49 d

N = 124

Post N = 124

One interview vs. control:

In-person

Research assistant

University student athletes recruited via university notices. The majority received psychology course credit for participation.

10-15 mins

(1) Attitudes

10-15 minutes:

NR

6/9

 

(2004) [41]

     

(Interview)

   

(ATSSPCQ)

(1) INT = .12b

  
   

M = 19.6

INT = 60 d

INT = 60 d

INT = Interview [discussing sport psychology and its benefits to the athlete (MHL, help-seeking source information)].

     

(2) INT = .34

 

(1, 2, 5)

   

SD = 1.8

C= 64 d

C= 64 d

     

(1) Attitudes: Confidence in sport psychology consultation

(3) INT = -.08

  
      

C = Control (interview discussing general experiences in sport).

    

(2) Attitudes: Personal openness

   
           

(3) Attitudes: Stigma tolerance

   

5

Han (2006)

TAI

18-36

N = 299

Post N = 243

Three written material interventions vs. control:

In-person (Written)

Researcherd

University students drawn from student body of 3 universities with 144 receiving psychology course credit for participation.

5-10 mins

(1) Willingnesse (HSWS)

2 weeks:

NR

5/9

 

[42]

          

BA and DS Combined across conditions for results. However, individual group effect sizes were:

  
   

M = 20.3

BA = 75

BA = 64

        

(1, 2, 4, 5)

   

SD = 2.2

DS = 76

DS = 56

BA = Biological attribution of depression psychoeducation (MHL).

        
    

CM = 72

CM = 61

         
    

C = 76

C = 62

         
      

DS = Destigmatisation of depression.

        
            

(1) BA = .17a c

  
      

CM = Combined BA and DS.

     

(1) DS = .04c

  
      

C = Control (no information).

     

(1) CM = .32a c

  

6

Sharp (2006)

USA

18-43

N = 123

Post N = 115

One seminar vs. control:

In-person (Seminar plus written)

Clinical psychology graduate student with master’s degree

University students seeking to fulfil psychology course requirement.

40 mins

(1) Attitudes (ATSPPHS-SF)

1 week:

4 weeks:

6/9

 

[43]

          

(1) SEM = .26b

(1) SEM = .26b

 
   

M = 20.0

SEM = 62

SEM = 60

SEM = Seminar [classroom-based mental health psychoeducational seminar + written information handouts (MHL, destigmatisation, help-seeking source information].

    

(2) Behaviour (Self-report help-seeking from mental health professional in the last 4 wks).

(2) SEM = NR

(2) SEM = .01

(1, 2, 4)

   

SD = 3.2

C = 61

C = 55

         
     

FU N = 105

         
     

SEM = 57

         
     

C = 48

C = Control (astronomy science video.

        
  1. Note: All studies were randomised at the individual level. Author = First author; Loc = Location of study, AUS = Australia, USA = United States of America, TAI = Taiwan; Age = Age range if provided, M = mean, SD = standard deviation of participants’ age; N Randomised = total number of participants randomised; N Post, FU = Number at post-intervention and follow-up; Intervention comparisons = Description of interventions; Delivery mode = Delivery mode; Provider = Person providing or facilitating the intervention; Setting = Where was the study recruited from and conducted; Length = Length of intervention; Help-seeking measures = Measures of professional help-seeking used; Post-test effect size/Follow-up effect size = Effect size calculated using Cohen’s d participant distributions (nominal data), or means and standard deviations using the Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator [45]; Quality rating = Quality rating of study using EPOC criteria - Numbers included in column to indicate which criteria study did not adequately address and report; 1 = Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?; 2 = Was the allocation adequately concealed?; 3 = Were baseline outcome measurements similar?; 4 = Were baseline characteristics similar?; 5 = Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?; 6 = Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study?; 7 = Was the study adequately protected against contamination?; 8 = Was the study free from selective outcome reporting?; 9 = Was the study free from other risks of bias?; Means and standard deviations were rounded to one decimal place, effect sizes to two decimal places.
  2. a Significant difference between intervention and control groups at post-test.
  3. b Significant difference between intervention and control groups in change scores from pre- to post-test.
  4. c Results combined by authors across conditions.
  5. d Sourced information from author post-publication.
  6. e Categorised as “attitudes” based on items from the scale.