ÜBERMAD

MotivationReview

Digital programmes may raise self-belief for brain or nerve illness

HelpedThe short version

Across five trials, programmes built on theory raised self-belief more than waiting or usual care did.

A man in a bold patterned jumper sits in an armchair with a laptop on his knees and looks up with a calm smile.
5
studies pooled
Self-rated
people rated themselves
2 tools
tested

The review

  1. Who took part

    The review covered 16 trials with 1674 people, most often with multiple sclerosis. Their average ages were about 38 to 56, and most trials were in the USA.

  2. What they did

    Most programmes were online sessions, lasting 4 to 24 weeks, and most had a human coach. Eight used cognitive behavioural ideas and three used social cognitive theory. Nine compared them with a waiting group or no treatment; the rest used usual care or another activity.

  3. What happened

    Compared with other groups, people on the programmes had less depression, anxiety and tiredness. They also had more self-belief, but social cognitive programmes did not clearly help. The paper says partly digital programmes did better, but its numbers do not clearly show that.

What the review found

  1. Helped

    Across five trials, programmes built on theory raised self-belief more than waiting or usual care did.

    Pooled analysis of 5 studies · vs people who waited or got usual care · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; results look too good to be true; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

  2. Helped

    In two trials, programmes that taught about illness and problem solving raised self-belief more than waiting did.

    Pooled analysis of 2 studies · vs people who waited or got nothing · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

  3. No difference

    In three trials, social cognitive programmes did not clearly raise self-belief more than waiting did.

    Pooled analysis of 3 studies · vs people who waited or got usual care · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; results look too good to be true; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

How solid is this?

  • People rated themselves
  • Summary claims more than the results show
  • Results look too good to be true
  • Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited

Source

Effectiveness of theory-based digital self-management interventions for improving depression, anxiety, fatigue and self-efficacy in people with neurological disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020)

DOI: 10.1177/1357633x20955122 (opens in a new tab)

More on motivation

See all