Combining AI and human support in mental health: a digital intervention with comparable effectiveness to human-delivered care

Introduction

Mental health conditions are the economic and healthcare challenge of our time. Globally, one in eight people live with a mental health condition (1), yet only one in four who require treatment receive it (2). Advances in technology and widespread internet access have been pivotal in increasing access to high-quality mental healthcare. However, one-to-one mental healthcare is inherently limited in its ability to meet the rising mental health demand, and there remains a significant shortage of therapists: there are only four psychiatrists per 100,000 people globally (3), and 58% of the US population live within a health workforce shortage area (4). Technology is primed to enable massive scaling of mental health interventions to increase both access and quality of support worldwide (5).

Rapid advances in computing and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in recent years have led to a rise in the development of digital interventions aiming to solve this scalability problem, and there are an estimated 10,000-20,000 smartphone applications available for mental health support (6,7). These solutions have the potential to enable timely access to support when needed, negate the logistical challenges of attending regular appointments, offer greater patient choice, and reduce burden on therapists and healthcare services (8). However, real-world usage, and in turn effectiveness, of many digital mental health solutions - most of which are self-led - has been poor (9–11). Despite a reported willingness of patients to adopt smartphone applications (12), one month retention rates are typically under 6% (13). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of mental health applications for symptoms of anxiety and depression found a small pooled clinical effect size (g=0.26) and highlighted that only 48% delivered content based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) principles (14) – a “gold-standard” evidence-based approach for anxiety and depression (15). Improving access is crucial, but equally vital is ensuring the support available to patients is engaging and effective.

NHS Talking Therapies (NHS TT, formerly IAPT) is a world-leading initiative designed to increase access to and improve delivery of mental health treatment in the UK. Fundamental to the success of NHS TT is systematic outcomes-monitoring, use of evidence-based treatment protocols, and an appropriately trained and supervised workforce (16). The acceleration of telehealth and expansion of care delivery through digital platforms (e.g. typed conversations) has also enabled insights into the relationship between the active components of evidencebased treatments and clinical outcomes (17,18). Combining this approach with the scalable, systematic delivery of evidence-based protocols through digital tools, offers the opportunity to reduce heterogeneity across the provision of mental healthcare worldwide, and accelerate large-scale scientific research to further enhance treatment quality and personalization (19). High-quality, accessible digital mental healthcare has the potential to maximize impact globally by both improving patient quality of life and reducing the growing economic burden of mental health on health systems and society (20,21).

In this study, we evaluated a digital program that uses this approach to alleviate mild, moderate and severe symptoms of generalized anxiety in adults. The program was designed to maximize engagement and effectiveness by using i) a structured evidence-based program drawing on principles from traditional CBT (22) including third wave approaches i.e. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) (23), and ii) an AI-powered conversational agent to deliver the program content in a personalized way. In addition, a dedicated human clinical and user support service was designed to wrap around the digital program, following previous research that human support significantly improves engagement with digital interventions (12,24). This service was developed to provide appropriate support while maintaining the scalability of the digital solution.

This study aimed to measure engagement, clinical effectiveness, acceptability and safety of this digital intervention. Evidence of the effectiveness of a digital intervention is often established through the comparison between the intervention and a waitlist control or self-led non-digital treatment only. However, if digital programs are to provide a scalable solution to global mental health need, we should expect them to provide comparable effectiveness to current standards of care. In this pragmatic, prospective single-intervention arm study, we compared the digital program against propensity-matched external control data from three groups of real-world NHS patients: i) a waiting control with no intervention; ii) patients receiving human-delivered face-to-face CBT; and iii) patients receiving human-delivered typed-CBT. While 1:1 face-to-face therapy serves as the gold-standard for comparison, 1:1 typed-therapy provides a more analogous comparison to the digital program under evaluation where content is predominantly delivered through written communication with the conversational agent. This study design allowed us to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness of the digital intervention to human-delivered standard care.

Methods

Study design

This was a pragmatic, single-intervention arm study with multiple external control groups to measure the engagement, clinical effectiveness, acceptability and safety of a digital program to alleviate symptoms of generalized anxiety in a sample of 300 UK participants. This study was conducted by ieso Digital Health (“ieso”, https://www.iesogroup.com/), an outpatient service provider within NHS TT delivering 1:1 human-delivered CBT via a typed modality to treat patients with common mental health disorders. The digital program evaluated here (software name: IDH-DP2-001) was developed by ieso as part of a clinical innovation program creating new scalable digital solutions for mental health support. This was an externally controlled trial meaning comparator arms (sometimes referred to as synthetic control arms) were generated through 1:1 propensity-matching of participants with real-world patients. External propensity-matched control groups were generated to evaluate the digital intervention in comparison to no intervention (i.e. waiting control), face-to-face CBT (gold-standard benchmark), and typed-CBT. This latter group provides an important comparator as it is an example of human-delivered care that closely mirrors the written content delivery within the digital program.

The intervention was delivered via a smartphone application (iPhone & Android). Following an initial clinical assessment with a qualified clinician, eligible participants downloaded the software on their personal smartphone and completed the program in their own time and according to a defined schedule. Participants were required to complete the six-module program within nine weeks. Clinical outcomes were collected as part of the program prior to each module (up to six time-points). Additional study endpoints were collected using validated questionnaires prior to the intervention, during the intervention (following completion of module three activities), after the intervention (completion or when nine-week time limit reached) and at one-month followup.

At the point of consent, all participants were asked if they were willing to participate in interviews with additional compensation offered. The sub-sample (based on first-come-first-served sign-up for available interview slots) attended a semi-structured interview pre- and postintervention to gather qualitative insights into the experience, acceptability and perceived safety of the digital program. Findings on acceptability of the digital program from detailed qualitative analysis of these interviews are reported in a separate publication.

The study was pre-registered (ISRCTN ID: 52546704) and obtained ethical approval prior to recruitment (IRAS ID: 327897, NHS Research Ethics Committee: West of Scotland REC 4). The trial design and participant CONSORT flowchart (25) are summarized in Figure 1. In line with the Declaration of Helsinki, all participants provided signed informed consent and were debriefed following the study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.

Prior to assessment enrolment avenues differed for external recruits (left) and patients referred to ieso for typed therapy (either from an NHS Provider or via a self-direct referral; right). External recruits signed-up specifically for the study via an external webpage following social media or email advertisements. All potential participants irrespective of enrolment avenue were triaged for suitability based on a Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). For patients, only those deemed to be potentially eligible were invited to participate. Participants were withdrawn either actively (requested to withdraw), passively (dropped-out or disengaged from study procedures), clinician-led (withdrawn based on clinician recommendation), or other (due to reasons such as technical issues). TAU = treatment as usual.

Description of Digital Intervention

The intervention consisted of a six-module digital program (‘ieso Digital Program’; software name: IDH-DP2-001) that used a conversational agent to guide participants through a pre-defined set of activities with human clinical oversight and user support. The program was intended as a first-line intervention for people primarily presenting with anxiety symptoms. The program was designed based on cognitive behavioral principles from traditional CBT and third wave approaches, such as ACT (33,34) (see Supplementary Table 1 for module details). All of the cognitive and behavioral processes, analogies and examples within the intervention were selected for their specificity in targeting symptoms of generalized anxiety.

The six modules consisted of an introduction module, three core modules, and two consolidation modules (Figure 2). The three core modules each consisted of three sessions that followed the pattern of i) learning, ii) activity, and iii) practice. The two consolidation modules consisted of two sessions. There were 16 sessions total. The introduction and consolidation modules consisted of sessions designed for onboarding and learning consolidation, respectively. All modules began with a symptom “check-in” consisting of the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 within the software immediately before the first session within that module. Sessions were made available on a timed schedule subject to completing the prior session (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Schematic of ieso Digital Program with human clinical and user support service and study procedures.

All participants received a clinical assessment prior to enrolment and were offered a discharge appointment with a clinician following the program. Clinicians were available via asynchronous messaging or for a review appointment whenever needed. All participants received email or SMS reminders and fortnightly checkin calls throughout the program to maximize engagement delivered via the research team. The ieso Digital Program included 6 modules with a total of 16 sessions. Each module started with a symptom check-in consisting of the GAD-7 and PHQ-9

Within each session, the software used a conversational agent to guide participants through a combination of videos, educational content, conversations, and worksheets written by accredited clinicians. The software used AI models for Natural Language Understanding, specific and tailored elements of Natural Language Generation and a dialogue management system. Part way through enrolment, with agreement from the overseeing NHS Research Ethics Committee, the software was updated to fix bugs, improve the user experience within the introductory module, and update select AI models. The final 60 participants enrolled were offered the updated software. Software version was controlled for in statistical analyses. The digital program was built in accordance with ISO 13485. Prior to the study, the program was registered as a UKCA marked Class 1 medical device.

Results

The final sample for analysis included 299 participants of whom 80% were female (n=240) with a mean age at baseline of 39.8 years (range: 18 – 75 years). Table 1 provides an overview of demographics and baseline severity for participants in the intervention group for both the ITT and PP samples.

Engagement and adherence

Participants (n=299) completed a median of 6.1 hours of program interaction over 53.1 days. This was higher for the PP sample in which participants completed a median of 8.7 hours over 59.6 days. In total, 232 participants (78%) were engaged in the program (i.e. completed session 1 of module 2) involving a median of 2 hours interacting with the program content over 14 days. Out of those engaged participants, 78% (n=180) reached the minimum meaningful clinical dose (i.e. completing up to check-in 4 out of 6 in the program). The overall study attrition rate (defined as the proportion of participants who did not complete the final study questionnaires) was 32%. Descriptive statistics of engagement with the program across modules are outlined in Table 2.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2. Engagement metrics for the digital program.

To determine if adherence across sessions differed between the groups, we compared adherence rates between the digital program, face-to-face therapy and typed therapy based on session completion. Confidence intervals for estimates of the adherence rate were overlapping indicating no difference in adherence rates across groups (Figure 3; Supplementary Table 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Adherence with program progression overlaid with adherence across therapy sessions for the control groups.

For each group, adherence was defined based on the proportion of participants who completed each GAD-7 assessment (“symptom check”) throughout their journey. Baseline was 100%, i.e. all participants/patients attended a clinical assessment and had a baseline GAD-7 score. For the ieso Digital Program group, each symptom check-in was at the beginning of each module within the program software (total 6 instances in program). To complete each symptom check-in within the program, participants had to finish the previous module. For the therapy control groups, patients completed each GAD-7 assessment as part of each attended treatment session (either face-to-face or typed) up to 6 treatment sessions. Within NHS TT every attended treatment session includes a GAD-7 assessment. Adherence rates across sessions were not significantly different between groups (Supplementary Table 3).

To investigate potential drivers of program adherence, demographic and study factors were associated with i) adherence, defined as number of completed sessions, and ii) non-adherence, defined as not being included in the PP sample. The number of completed sessions in the program did not show any significant associations with demographic or study factors (linear regression: F(24, 274) = 1.4, p = .11, adjusted R² = 0.03; Supplementary Table 4). Age was associated with non-adherence, with younger participants less likely to be in the PP sample (logistic regression: OR = 0.97, p = .009; Supplementary Table 5).

Clinical Effectiveness

Anxiety symptoms

On average, across the intervention sample, there was a large, clinically meaningful reduction in anxiety symptoms from baseline to final score (PP: mean GAD-7 change = −7.4, d = 1.6; ITT: mean GAD-7 change = −5.4, d = 1.1). This reduction was significantly greater than that found for the waiting control (mean GAD-7 change = −1.9; PP between-subject effect: p <.001, d = 1.3; ITT between-subject effect: p <.001, d = 0.8), and statistically non-inferior to the propensity-matched face-to-face therapy control (PP: mean GAD-7 change = −6.4, non-inferiority effect p <.001; ITT: mean GAD-7 change = −6.0, non-inferiority effect p = .002). For the propensity matched typed-therapy control, the intervention was significantly noninferior for the PP sample (mean GAD-7 change: −7.5; non-inferiority p <.001), and for the ITT sample the effect was approaching significance (mean GAD-7 change = −6.6, p = .06; Figure 4, Table 3). Clinical outcomes for all groups are reported in Supplementary Table 6.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3. Change in GAD-7 score from baseline to final score for all groups.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4. Change in PHQ-9 and WSAS score from baseline to final score for all groups.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Change in anxiety symptoms from baseline to final score for all groups.

A) Mean change (final score - baseline) in GAD-7 scores for the PP sample (n=169), propensity-matched waiting control group, face-to-face CBT group, and typed CBT group. B) Mean change in GAD-7 scores for the ITT sample (n=299) and a propensity-matched waiting control group, face-to-face CBT group, and typed CBT group. C) Mean GAD-7 scores at baseline and final score with 95% confidence intervals for the PP sample (n=169) and propensity-matched waiting control group, face-to-face CBT group, and typed CBT group. D) Mean GAD-7 scores at baseline and final score with 95% confidence intervals for the ITT sample (n=299) and propensity-matched waiting control group, face-to-face CBT group, and typed CBT group. *** = p < .001, ** = p <.005

The trajectory for mean reduction in anxiety symptoms was steeper following the earlier program modules (Figure 5; Supplementary Table 7). When stratified by baseline GAD-7 severity into mild, moderate, and severe groups, the severe group showed the greatest reduction in anxiety symptoms (PP (n=48): mean change on GAD-7 = −10.7, d = 2.0; ITT (n=87): mean change on GAD-7 = −7.9, d = 1.3; Supplementary Table 8). By the end of the program, the moderate and severe groups showed a mean GAD-7 score in the mild range. The clinical effect was sustained at one-month follow-up (Figure 5). Between final score and one month follow-up, there was no change in GAD-7 mean score for the PP (n=166) and ITT (n=210) samples with follow-up data (both sample mean difference = 0.0; Supplementary Table 7).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Mean reduction in anxiety symptoms across digital program.

Mean GAD-7 score for each time-point for all participants that completed the questionnaires at each time-point. Trajectories split by GAD-7 baseline severity: mild, moderate and severe (Supplementary Table 7).

The associations between participant demographics, study factors and change in GAD-7 score were explored with a linear regression: F(24, 274) = 3.45, p< .001, adjusted R² of 0.16. Greater reductions in GAD-7 scores were associated with higher baseline GAD-7 scores (β = 0.70, SE = 0.09, t = 7.6, p< .001), and higher baseline age (β = 0.07, SE = 0.02, t = 3.0, p = .003) (Supplementary Table 9), such that more severe, older participants saw a larger change in GAD-7 score.

Mood symptoms

As intended, given the specificity of the program for targeting symptoms of generalized anxiety, there was a statistically significant yet smaller effect for low mood symptoms as measured with the PHQ-9 (PP: mean PHQ-9 change = −3.1, d=0.7; ITT: mean PHQ-9 change = −1.6, d = 0.3) (Table 4). This mean change was significantly greater than the mean change in the waiting control group for the PP sample (mean PHQ-9 change = −1.0, between-subject effect, p < .001, d = 0.5), but not for the ITT sample (p = .11 d = 0.1). Despite this, PHQ-9 remission rate (based on n=80 above the clinical cut-off at baseline) was 78.8% (Supplementary Table 6). Participants with severe and moderate baseline GAD-7 scores experienced the largest improvement in PHQ-9 scores (Supplementary Table 8). There was minimal mean change in scores between post intervention and followup for both PP and ITT samples (PP mean difference = 0.5; ITT mean difference = 0.4) (Supplementary Table 10).

Work and social functioning

There was a significant improvement in work and social functioning measured using the WSAS from baseline to final score for the intervention group (PP: mean WSAS change = −5.3, d = 0.9; ITT (n=295): mean WSAS change = −4.7, d = 0.7) (Table 4). This mean change was significantly greater than the mean change in the waiting control group (mean WSAS change = −0.1; PP between-subject effect p < .001, d = 1.2; ITT between-subject effect, p < .001, d = 0.8). The largest changes in functioning were for severe and moderate anxiety groups (Supplementary Table 8).

Discussion

This study demonstrates that an evidence-based, human-supported digital intervention for adults with mild, moderate and severe anxiety produced a large clinically meaningful reduction in anxiety symptoms significantly greater than a propensity-matched waiting control and non-inferior to real-world human delivered therapy. Engagement with the program was high and participants adhered to the intervention at a similar rate to the external therapy control groups. The intervention achieved comparable outcomes to human-delivered care with significantly reduced clinician time. By integrating technology and human support, this study demonstrates the potential to expand global access to high-quality, effective mental healthcare.

The large clinical effect of the digital intervention across participants with moderate or severe symptoms highlights the clinical value of the combined program content and human support. Here, the PP (d = 1.3) and ITT (d = 0.8) effect sizes relative to waitlist are larger than the pooled effect size reported in a recent meta-analysis (n comparisons = 96, g = 0.26) (14). Unlike the PP sample which is designed to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of an intervention when the intervention is adhered to, the ITT sample provides an estimate of effectiveness more reflective of the real-world context by accounting for disengagement. The large ITT effect was significantly non-inferior to face-to-face therapy, and approaching significance for non-inferiority to typed-therapy (p = 0.06). Human-delivered care enables greater flexibility to respond to patient concerns and adapt content compared to a digital program, therefore the comparable clinical effects and adherence rates across groups indicates the potential of this digital intervention to significantly impact real-world patient outcomes.

It is important to note that high relapse and recurrence rates have implications for both patient quality of life and economic healthcare costs, therefore ensuring effects are durable is imperative (46-48). Incorporating cognitive and behavioral principles into daily life through practical exercises can enable meaningful behavioral change that persists beyond treatment end (16). Here, both the persistent clinical effect at one month follow-up, and the significant improvement in the impact of anxiety on participants’ day-to-day functioning (as measured with the WSAS) highlights the potential of the intervention to instigate long-lasting behavioral change. Retrospective analysis of recurrence data from electronic health records is needed to accurately measure the persistence of the clinical effect in the real world over a longer follow-up time-period.

The engagement rate of the digital program (78%) and time to reach “engaged” (∼2 hours of program interaction over 2 weeks) is comparable to engagement rates and time in therapy observed in NHS TT services for treatment of GAD (70%; 2022-2023) (49). Adherence rates across groups in the study were also similar. Average program interaction time (median 6.1 hours) across the ITT sample was greater than that reported for similar app-based interventions (e.g. median 3.4 hours) (50), indicating high engagement with the program. Study attrition (32%) is higher than previous reports from studies of conversational agent-delivered mental health interventions (22%) (51), yet similar to real-world global treatment drop-out rates (∼20-40%) (52,53). This may be due to the pragmatic design of the study: 30% of the sample recruited through ieso’s therapy referrals could choose to withdraw at any time and immediately access 1:1 human-delivered therapy; and participants had the option to discuss their progress or any issues with the clinical team at any point. These factors could have increased withdrawal rates more than previous studies, but more readily reflect real-world patient choice and clinical decision-making.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare the effectiveness of a digital intervention to standard of care using external propensity-matched comparator groups from real-world patient data. There is increasing acceptability for the use of externally controlled clinical trials (54-57) made possible by the availability of large-scale, standardized datasets. Generating external comparator groups reduces patient burden, study costs, and avoids delaying treatment for the comparator group receiving no intervention (58). However, creating standard of care control arms that are directly comparable to a novel intervention remains difficult due to differences in how to define comparable doses, treatment completion and account for study-specific assessments. Moreover, the lack of randomization means selection bias and study effects are not controlled for in the current study. Nevertheless, this is more reflective of real-world care where treatment outcomes are biased by a patient’s preference and choice over their treatment.

The clinical effect and engagement rate reported in the current study could have been driven by a combination of the three key features of the digital intervention: i) a curated and structured evidence-based program, ii) a conversational agent to deliver the program content, and iii) a human user and clinical support model akin to standard healthcare delivery. First, the structured evidence-based program was curated by a team of accredited cognitive behavioral therapists with an average of 14 years direct clinical experience. The program used principles from traditional CBT (22) including third wave approaches, such as ACT. This approach encourages individuals to accept their thoughts and feelings while committing to actions aligned with their values. There is a growing body of evidence indicating that ACT demonstrates comparable effectiveness to other forms of CBT for anxiety disorders (59-61), and has been shown to be acceptable and engaging within a digital program for GAD (62,63).

Second, a conversational agent was used to personalize the content delivery and enhance engagement. Despite rapid growth in the development of AI conversational agents, use of this technology remains rare in digital mental health interventions, with only ∼5% using this technology (14). The majority of these systems employ a tree-based dialogue approach, where natural language processing analyzes user input, and responses are selected from a predefined set of pre-written answers. However, previous research has shown users find this frustrating, particularly when it feels the agent does not understand them (64,65). Recent advances in the development of large language models now make it possible to flexibly generate personalized language for a more engaging user experience. In the current study, the digital program primarily used a tree-based dialogue system with controlled use of natural language generation in specific instances to enhance engagement. Increased use of generative technology and reduced reliance on tree-based approaches will continually improve the capability of conversational agents to create a personalized and engaging experience. However, allowing fully autonomous language generation within the context of mental health, where patient problems can be nuanced, complex and require the consideration of social and cultural contexts, poses a high risk for patient harm and misuse (66). Stringent validation of these new AI technologies with a phased roll out alongside human oversight will be essential to ensure patient safety (67).

Finally, a ‘blended’ design of human support and conversational technology has been suggested to be key for maximizing real-world engagement (51). Previous research has highlighted lack of trust, lack of user-centric design, privacy concerns, poor usability, and being unhelpful in emergencies as key drivers of poor engagement with digital interventions (12). To address these concerns, we mirrored a real-world treatment model including user support services, clinician referral to the program, proactive symptom monitoring and clinician availability for collaborative decision-making with each participant. This service created a credible and trustworthy patient experience that we believe positively impacted patient outcomes. Although this study was not designed to demonstrate the economic value of the intervention, the average clinician time spent per participant was <2 hours, which is significantly lower than current standards of care globally: approximately 4 times less than an average episode of treatment in the UK for GAD (∼8 appointments between 45-60 mins; NHS Digital 2021-2022) (49) and ∼approximately 8 times less globally (∼15 appointments; mean across reported naturalistic studies in (68)). This new model, combining an AI-driven program with clinical support, allows the current, limited supply of trained therapists to help more people than current standards of care.

Limitations of the current study include the use of compensation for time for those who volunteered to participate, and the selection of a sample with limited low mood symptoms. In particular, in line with the study exclusion criteria, individuals with severe depression symptoms were not included. Nevertheless, the propensity-matching across groups controls for this, i.e. all groups included patients with similar baseline anxiety and depression symptoms. Differences in PP sample sizes across the control groups were likely driven by the definition of PP in each context rather than engagement, given similar adherence rates across the groups. Defining a comparable PP sample across groups is challenging due to differences in dose intensity, delivery mechanism and data collected, as well as significant variation across patients in both clinical presentation of generalized anxiety and response to treatment. The PP samples for the therapy control groups were based on completed episodes of care, therefore were agnostic of therapy dose and would have included those who received a low number of sessions and recovered quickly. Those individuals would not have been included in the intervention PP sample which was conservatively defined based on minimum program interaction.

There were also limitations in terms of the diversity of the intervention sample, with enrolled participants predominantly white, highly educated, and female. This sample is reflective of the typical profile of GAD patients in the UK and US (49,69). Although we attempted to increase diversity in this sample through focused marketing campaigns, these efforts were not successful. Needs differ across individuals, conditions and contexts, and a greater understanding of the barriers to research participation is required to fully understand these needs, particularly where groups have been systematically excluded from research, and where there is stigma around mental health. Increasing access to mental health support could play a substantial role in addressing unmet need in underserved groups, therefore future work will aim to evidence the inclusivity of this digital intervention and its potential to counter existing health inequalities.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that a digital intervention, designed for adults with symptoms of generalized anxiety, produces comparable outcomes to human-delivered CBT while significantly reducing the required clinician time. This result indicates the potential for digital interventions to provide high quality, evidencebased care at scale to address unmet need worldwide. As AI technologies rapidly progress, it is evident that generative dialogue systems that emulate creative and flexible human language will soon be widely accessible. This accessibility will radically change how individuals seek mental health support. Our responsibility lies in leveraging these advances, addressing the ethical and social challenges inherent with AI, and combining the best of technology with the best of clinical care to increase access to effective, safe and engaging mental health support for everyone. Rigorous evidence, particularly to understand the optimal blend of human and computer support for different individuals, will be key to accelerate precision treatment, maintain scalability, maximize uptake and adherence, and integrate digital interventions into health systems.

Funding

This research was funded by ieso Digital Health Ltd.

Competing Interests

Chief Investigator (EMa) and other investigators (CEP, EMi, GW, MPE, EC, SL, AS, CH, JY, MB, LM, SM, RC, VT, AC, AW, AB) are employees of ieso Digital Health Limited (the company funding this research) or its subsidiaries. None of these authors had a direct financial incentive related to the results of this study or the publication of the manuscript.

Author contributions

CEP, EMa, AW & AB conceptualized the study. CEP and EMi drafted the paper. GW, EMi, MPE, EC, MB, AS & AC contributed to data analyses and interpretation. SL, JY, CH, EMa & CEP conducted the study. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results and paper revision, and approved the final version.