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.