Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of studies on randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating the effect of IT platforms with intervention programmes including electronic self-monitoring of mood on different outcomes in adult patients with bipolar disorder listed according to year of publication. N = 759

From: Electronic self-monitoring of mood using IT platforms in adult patients with bipolar disorder: A systematic review of the validity and evidence

Author, Country, year of publication Design Intervention group: IT platform, name of tool Control group Sample size, setting, agea, Bipolar disorder type I Additional information on the intervention group Self-monitoring frequency, follow-up Blinding of outcome assessor Outcome
Lieberman DZ et al., USA, 2010 [57] RCT Computer-based, Online self-monitoring using LCMb Paper-and-pencil self-monitoring 48, Outpatient, 37.7 (SD 12.5), 13 % Online self-monitoring of mood, medications and other variables Daily, 90 days NA - No difference in CGI-Sc score between the groups
- Significantly higher number of days rated and with complete data in the electronic self-monitoring group (intervention group)
Depp CA et al., USA, 2012 [58] RCT Smartphone-based, Self-monitoring using smartphone Paper-and-pencil self-monitoring 40, Outpatient, 45.1 (SD 13.8), 90.4 % Smartphone-based monitoring of momentary mood and related experiences Twice/ day in fixed time blocks, 12 weeks Yes - Significantly higher variability of self-monitored mood in the electronic self-monitoring group both within-person and between-persons
- Significantly higher compliance in paper-and pencil group (control group)
Todd NJ et al., UK, 2014 [60] RCT Web-based, Online self-monitoring using ‘Living with Bipolar’ TAU (and waiting list) 122, Outpatient, 43.44 (SD 11.25), 70 % Web-based recovery informed self-management and self-monitoring NA, 6 months No (self-assessed unblinded by patients) - Primary outcome: Significantly higher self-assessed quality of life (QoL.BD-Briefd and WHOQoL-BREFe) in the intervention group
- Secondary outcome: Significantly higher self-assessed recovery (BRQ f), lower symptoms severity (ISSg), and higher social functioning (SASSh) in the intervention group
Barnes CW et al., Autralia, 2015 [61] RCT Web-based, Online self-monitoring using ‘Recovery Road for Bipolar Disorder’ Websites on ‘healthy lifestyles’ (and waiting list) 233, Outpatients, 39.0 (SD 10.8), 87.6 % Web-based psychoeducatio-nal program and self-monitoring Weekly, 12 months No (self-assessed unblinded by patients) - Primary outcome: No significant differences in self-reported time to recurrence (BDI-IIi, ISSg, self-reported hospitalization and Sheehan Disability Scale) between the groups
Depp CA et al., USA, 2015 [62] RCT Smartphone-based, Self-monitoring using ‘Personalized Real-Time Intervention for Stabilizing Mood (PRISM)’ Paper-pencil self-monitoring 82, Outpatient, 47.5 (SD 12.8), 87.8 % Smartphone-based personal self-management strategies and self-monitoring Twice/ day in fixed time blocks, 24 weeks Yes - Primary outcome: Significantly lower MADRSj score at week 6 and 12 in the intervention group. No difference at end of study.
- Secondary outcome: No significant differences in YMRSk and self-rated functional impairmentl between the groups
Lauder S et al.,Australia, 2015 [63] RCT Web-based, Online self-monitoring using ‘Moodswings’ Moodswings (online psychoeducation, self-monitoring of mood and discussion boards) 156, Outpatients, 40.6 (SD 10.6), 51.5 % Moodswings plus online Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Daily, 12 months No (self-assessed unblinded by patients) - Primary outcome: Significantly lower ASRMm score in the intervention group. No difference in MADRS Self-assessment and other self-assessed outcomes between the groups.
Faurholt-Jepsen M et al., Denmark, 2015 [76] RCT Smartphone-based, self-monitoring using ‘MONARCA’ Placebo smartphone and TAU 78, Outpatients, 29.3 (SD 8.43), 67.1 % Smartphone-based self-monitoring and daily feedback loop to patient and clinicians Daily, 6 months Yes - Primary outcome: No significant difference in HDRS-17n and YMRS between the groups.
- Sub-analyses: More depressive symptoms in the intervention group. Fewer manic symptoms in the intervention group.
  1. aMean and standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise stated
  2. bLife Chart Method
  3. cClinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S)
  4. dQuality of Life in BD scale (Brief version)
  5. eWorld Health Organisation Quality of Life assessment tool, brief version
  6. fBipolar Recovery Questionnaire
  7. gInternal States Scale
  8. hSocial Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale
  9. iBeck Depression Inventory-II
  10. jMontgomery Asberg depression Rating Scale Self-Assessment
  11. kYoung Mania Rating Scale
  12. lIllness Intrusiveness Scale
  13. mAltman Self-Rating Mania Scale
  14. nHamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item