Approximately half of the Australian population experiences a common mental disorder (eg, anxiety and depression) at some point in their lives [1]. Mental and substance use disorders are the fourth highest contributor to total disease burden after cancer, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal conditions [2], whereas suicide is the leading cause of death among young people aged between 15 and 44 years and the fourth leading cause of death in those aged between 45 and 64 years [2]. Despite these alarming statistics, only one-third of people experiencing mental illness will access support services [3]. The reasons for this may be structural (eg, availability of suitable services), knowledge-related (eg, limited awareness of the benefits of accessing mental health services), or attitudinal (eg, stigma and stoicism).

When people do seek help for mental health issues, 71% will contact their general practitioner (GP) at the first instance [3]. GPs play a crucial role in suicide prevention; approximately 45% of people who die by suicide have had contact with primary care in the preceding month and 77% in the preceding year [4]. However, GPs report the lack of tools needed to administer psychological care, including a lack of time, resources, and confidence [5]. Although GPs and their patients increasingly value psychological support, a shortage of professionals and time on wait lists, averaging between 2 and 6 months, is both frustrating and distressing for GPs and their patients.

There is a pressing need to bridge the gap between primary health and mental health care, particularly for Australians facing greater difficulties in accessing mental health care and who are at particular risk of suicide, such as those in rural areas. Fortunately, Australians are increasingly willing to use the internet to search for health-related information [6], with at least 86% of Australian households now having access to the internet [7]. Therefore, web-based resources and interventions may supplement face-to-face services, providing support to people as they wait for appointments [8] and new avenues to reach those who face structural or attitudinal barriers to accessing face-to-face mental health services [9]. Web-based resources have the advantage of enabling consumers’ anonymity and access at any time of the day or night, from the privacy and convenience of their own homes [8].

Across the globe, web-based interventions have been shown to effectively reduce the severity of symptoms of depression [10], anxiety [11], and social anxiety [12] and increase mental health literacy [13] and the ability to recognize, accept, deal with, and help prevent mental health issues [14]. The quality of this evidence is high, with a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs; eg, the studies by McDermott et al [10], Powell et al [12], and Kiropoulos et al [13]) and systematic reviews (eg, the studies by Renton et al [15] and Ashford et al [16]) illustrating their value. Participation has also been associated with decreases in personal stigmatizing attitudes toward depression in the mainstream population [17] and among immigrants [13], as well as decreases in stigmatizing attitudes toward suicide [18] and help seeking [19]. Importantly, web-based interventions have been identified as acceptable in difficult-to-reach populations such as farmers [20], young people [21], and culturally and linguistically diverse groups [22,23]. They can be successfully integrated into routine primary care [24,25], and many Australian GPs support the notion of aiding their patients’ mental well-being through these resources [26]. In addition, web-based interventions have been found to be cost-effective for development and delivery; many are offered for free to consumers [8]. However, with the plethora of interventions emerging on the internet [27], there is a need for reliable and clear recommendations to help clinicians and consumers select web-based interventions that are based on evidence-based therapeutic approaches and meet their needs. The e-Mental Health in Practice (eMHPrac) project, funded by the Australian Government, has a range of resources to help Australian health practitioners find digital mental health programs for use with their patients [28]. This provides an excellent quick reference guide for clinicians. However, it does not outline the types of therapeutic approaches and tools used or indicate whether resources are evidence-based.

A total of 2 existing international scoping reviews summarize the characteristics of web-based interventions available for the treatment of depression in Canada in 2014 [15] and anxiety in the United Kingdom in 2016 [16]. The review of programs for depression by Renton et al [15] identified 32 programs, with only 12 having published evidence of efficacy. Furthermore, the review of programs for anxiety by Ashford et al [16] identified 34 programs, with only 17 having published evidence of efficacy. Given the rapid creation of web-based mental health resources in recent years [27] and the tendency for web-based mental health programs to change, arise, and disappear with the provision or withdrawal of funding, there is a need for updated information on interventions that consumers and clinicians are likely to come across via search engines in the Australian context. Of particular benefit to clinicians would be a focus on free and publicly available interventions, based on evidence-based therapeutic approaches, that Australians can immediately find or be referred to. Clinicians have also indicated that it would be useful to include web-based interventions for adults seeking help for general mental well-being and suicidal ideation, which are issues commonly encountered in clinical practice but not covered by past reviews. We note that many reviews of the evidence for web-based interventions for specific disorders (eg, depression [29-31]) and for specific populations (eg, adolescents and young adults [32,33]) have been undertaken in recent years. Although these are helpful for researchers and intervention developers, they are less likely to meet the practical information needs of consumers and clinicians, as many of the interventions contained in the reviews are not available outside research settings, and others that are publicly accessible, have not been evaluated and therefore are not included in the reviews.

The purpose of this research is to identify the scope of and evidence for web-based mental health interventions addressing depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, or general mental well-being that are currently available for free to Australian adults, and in doing so, develop a quick reference guide for GPs and mental health clinicians. It seeks to answer the following questions [34]:

Eligible interventions were those that (1) targeted depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, or general mental well-being (eg, resilience and stress); (2) were web-based; (3) had an interactive component (ie, the delivery of content was not entirely in a passive manner); (4) were designed for adults; (5) were free (ie, at no cost) and publicly available (including via registration, application, or referral from a health care professional); (6) were available in English; and (7) were based on an evidence-based therapeutic approach.

Interventions were excluded if (1) they were targeted at consumers with a primary general medical condition (eg, survivors of cancer); (2) solely provided reading materials on one of the inclusion outcomes (ie, psychoeducation) or only offered a single tool (eg, diary-keeping, mood-monitoring, and meditation) without relevant psychoeducation or explanation of a broader evidence-based therapeutic approach; (3) were targeted at health professionals for training purposes; (4) were part of a research project that restricted access or limited program availability; or (5) included classes that had to be attended in person.

A search was conducted in October 2020 for key terms using Google (Australian version). As the previously published scoping review on web-based interventions for depression only found 1 additional website when searching Yahoo and Bing [15], only Google was searched for this review. A total of 4 searches were conducted by searching the following keywords: depression, anxiety, suicide, and wellbeing. A search log was kept to record the number of hits for each search, as well as the number of websites that were included or excluded (Multimedia Appendix 1). The search was terminated for the terms after searching the first 10 pages of results (ie, approximately 100 hits per keyword). Cookies and existing search histories were deleted before the start of each search, and the search results were downloaded into a Microsoft Excel file using a Chrome extension (ie, Export Search Results).

In addition, key intervention databases were searched by 2 reviewers (SvdK and SL). These included Beacon [37], Head to Health [38], and eMHPrac websites [39]. Finally, the reference lists and programs listed in the 2 existing scoping reviews on web-based depression [15] and anxiety [16] resources were searched by 2 reviewers (SvdK and SL) to identify any programs not included in the searches outlined. An overview of program developers and website links is provided in Multimedia Appendix 2.

Screening of the search results to identify eligible web-based programs was completed in 2 stages. The first stage involved screening all search hyperlinks by 1 reviewer (SvdK) to eliminate websites that solely provided information on 1 of the outcomes or those that were clearly irrelevant (eg, mental health information only websites, YouTube videos, or blogs). The remainder of the websites was then divided into those that directly offered web-based programs and those that linked to web-based programs. Any duplicate websites were removed. The second stage involved screening potential eligible programs against the eligibility criteria by 2 reviewers (SvdK and SL; Figure 1).

A data extraction form was created to systematically evaluate each identified program. The extraction tool was adapted from a previously published framework designed to evaluate and report internet intervention studies [40]. This framework has been used in 2 recent scoping reviews examining web-based interventions for depression [15] and anxiety [16]. The main categories and subcategories of investigation were adapted from these studies (Table 1).

Websites were trialed and data extraction was undertaken by 3 reviewers (SvdK, SL, and GS) in November to December 2020, with the reviewers independently extracting data for each website so that the data extraction was performed in duplicate. Discrepancies in coding were resolved by discussion and, where necessary, investigated by the third reviewer. Where necessary, program authors were contacted to request access to the program. For 2 websites (MindSpot and Evolution Health), information was extracted from the public-facing pages where possible, and the remaining information was requested from the website authors or developers because of time and administrative constraints.

To identify relevant peer-reviewed papers and thereby explore the empirical evidence behind each program, we checked the program websites and the Beacon directory and contacted the program authors. A total of 3 reviewers (SvdK, DHB, and GS) then conducted a rapid review of the peer-reviewed evidence for each program. This was limited to evaluations of the complete web-based program rather than individual program elements or individual modules. In addition, the level of evidence was determined for each peer-reviewed study [41].

A program evaluation scoring system was adapted from previously published guidelines for evaluating and reporting web-based intervention research [40], similar to Ashford et al [16]. The scale comprised 17 yes or no closed-ended questions (Textbox 1). Questions that were answered yes were given a score of 1 and questions that were answered no were scored 0. Questions that could not be evaluated were given a score of 0. Questions that were not relevant to the website were excluded from the final score (listed as “NA”). The final scores were calculated as a percentage of the number of relevant items for that website. A total of 3 reviewers (SvdK, SL, and GS) independently assessed the programs against the evaluation scoring system. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

The results were summarized quantitatively by main categories and subcategories, as displayed in Table 1. Where possible, descriptive statistics were used to summarize these findings.

As seen in Figure 1, 450 websites were screened through Google search, and an additional 13 websites were identified through database searches. Approximately 10.6% (49/463) of websites with links to potentially eligible programs and 39 potentially eligible programs were identified. Of the 49 websites, 25 (51%) program websites were screened for eligibility, of which 16 (64%) websites (leading to 52 programs) were included in the review. Of the 52 programs, 20 (39%) programs were classified as web-based interactive, and 32 (62%) programs were classified as web-based with downloadable worksheets/resources. These 2 types of programs were separated in the summary tables.

We only found 2 programs (BeyondNow and My Digital Health iConsider Life) designed to address distress in the context of suicidal ideation. It should be noted that the inclusion of BeyondNow was debated between team members, as we experienced difficulty in determining whether it fully fulfills the criteria of using an evidence-based therapeutic approach. Nonetheless, it is considered a valuable tool for the management of suicide ideation; therefore, it was included in this review.

Table 2 provides an overview of program characteristics for web-based interactive programs and Table 3 for web-based programs with downloadable worksheets or resources.

Out of 17 possible evaluation items, 75% (39/52) of programs could be evaluated against all 17 items, 15% (8/52) against 94% (16/17) of items, and 10% (5/52) against 76% (13/17) of items (Table 6). In total, scores ranged from 44% to 100%, with an average score of 85% (SD 10.7%). More specifically, of the 75% (39/52) of programs that provided values for all 17 items, scores varied between 65% and 94%, with an average score of 87% (SD 7%). This was between 44% and 81%, with an average of 69% (SD 11%), for programs that provided values for 16 items, and between 85% and 100%, with an average of 95% (SD 7%), for programs that provided values for 13 items. Individual answers to the program evaluation criteria are shown in Multimedia Appendix 3.

Evidence of the program’s usability (ie, attrition data, success rate, completion rate, or number of users in the program or testimonials) was provided for 52% (27/52) of programs. In many cases, where a website offered ≥1 program, these results were provided for the suite of programs listed on the website generally rather than for the specific programs (eg, Evolution Health and This Way Up). Approximately 56% (29/52) of programs were supported by some type of evaluation; 59% (17/29) had undergone effectiveness trials, and 41% (12/29) had empirical evidence of both effectiveness and acceptability (ie, level III and level IV evidence). Approximately 68% (19/29) of the evaluated programs had undergone evaluation via RCT (ie, level II evidence). Of the 23 programs without evaluation data, 6 (26%) are currently in the process of being evaluated. All 52 programs and the type of evaluation studies conducted, including the level of evidence, are shown in Table 6 [41]. A rapid review of the evidence for each of these programs’ evaluations is provided in Multimedia Appendix 4 [10,12,17,42-151].

The vast majority of programs provided privacy notices (50/52, 96%) and terms and conditions (51/52, 98%). Approximately 88% (46/52) of programs provided crisis links in the form of telephone numbers for emergency services, numbers of helplines or links to websites, and other resources. Only 1 website did not offer crisis links for its programs (CCI); this website was developed by the Western Australian Department of Health to provide evidence-based web-based resources to support practitioners, as well as to provide self-help materials for individuals. The terms and conditions of the website state that the information is provided for information purposes only.

The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize the freely available web-based resources based on an evidence-based therapeutic approach for Australian adults seeking self-help for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, or general well-being. We sought to describe their characteristics, including therapeutic approaches, key features, and the quality of evidence behind them and thereby produce an accessible summary to inform clinicians’ selection of web-based interventions for their patients. This review builds on past reviews of web-based resources for depression [15] and anxiety [16]. To our knowledge, this is the first review of publicly available interventions that includes both suicidal ideation and general well-being.

A total of 52 web-based programs were identified, of which 20 (39%) were classified as web-based interactive programs, and 32 (62%) were classified as web-based programs with downloadable worksheets or resources. Of these 52 programs, 29 (56%) had been empirically evaluated, and most of the evidence was assessed as level II or III studies. This is similar to past reviews, which found that 50% of the programs addressing anxiety had undergone empirical evaluation [16], and 38% of programs addressing depression had been evaluated via an RCT (ie, level II studies) [15]. A total of 6 additional programs in this review were also currently undergoing evaluation at the time of writing (ifarmwell, My Digital Health programs, Mum2BMoodBooster, and Students Against Depression).

The evaluation of the included programs showed that, on average, programs scored 85%, indicating that the included web-based programs are generally of good quality. The lowest score was for Students Against Depression (44%) as it did not include information about the developers or the evidence behind the program, privacy notices, terms and conditions. However, Students Against Depression was one of the programs that offered downloadable modules, similar to the CCI programs, and it is currently undergoing evaluation, which may lead to a higher evaluation score once completed. The CCI programs, which scored third to last but are highly regarded by clinicians, included a privacy notice and terms and conditions, and their scores ranged between 69% and 75%. The highest scores were given to the 4 programs by MindSpot, which could only be evaluated against 77% (13/17) of the items. These programs could not be evaluated on more of the items because of restrictions on accessing the program, which may have resulted in higher scores.

Almost all programs reported that they were based on CBT, either with or without other therapeutic approaches. Only 1 program, ifarmwell, was based on ACT. Although traditional CBT focuses on challenging unhelpful thoughts, ACT focuses on defusing from and accepting them and finding value-consistent ways of living despite the circumstances to build psychological flexibility [152]. A recent international systematic review and meta-analysis of internet-based ACT programs between 2009 and 2019 [153] found 25 efficacy studies in a variety of clinical and nonclinical populations. Overall, the pooled results showed a reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety and an improvement in quality of life and psychological flexibility at postassessment, with results maintained at follow-up assessments. Given this evidence, it is surprising that not more ACT-based web- interventions are available in Australia. However, that review focused on research-driven studies and not publicly available programs; therefore, none of the studies examined by Thompson et al [153] overlapped with this review. Similarly, only 1 program was based on DBT, which differs from CBT in that its main focus is on helping people change their behavior patterns instead of changing dysfunctional beliefs [154,155]. It also focuses on distress tolerance, which is more like ACT than CBT, and includes mindfulness and interpersonal skills training. A review of clinical effectiveness and guidelines showed that DBT is not statistically significantly greater than comparators in reducing depressive and anxiety symptoms [156].

The results of the current review found that 19% (10/52) of programs provided free therapist support, and 21% (11/52) allowed users to link in their existing clinicians. Research examining whether therapist-guided versus self-guided web-based interventions are more, less, or equally effective has produced mixed results. A recent meta-analysis of 21 studies of web-based programs targeting depression found no significant differences in the effectiveness of the programs to prevent depression based on whether they were guided or not [31]. In contrast, another meta-analysis of studies reported greater effect sizes for outcomes from interventions for depression and anxiety that were guided compared with effect sizes for those that were not [153]. However, these differences may be because of the type of therapy given, as the former was based on CBT and the latter on ACT. In addition, the use of email or SMS text message reminders or messages of encouragement may compensate for the lack of guidance in some programs. Guided interventions are not always practical to implement and may be expensive and hard to sustain and limit the accessibility of the program. Therefore, future research should continue to examine the impact of incorporating, or not incorporating, these program components and alternatives.

This review found that roughly half of the programs were structured or tunneled; a further 22 programs provided a recommended structure (but did not require that the user follow this), and 3 programs were unstructured, allowing the user choice in how and when they completed different modules. Research evidence is inconclusive on the manner in which web-based materials are best organized [157]. A recent systematic review found inconclusive evidence linking website structure and behavioral or health outcomes [158]. They reported that the number of peer-reviewed studies that manipulated website structure to examine its effects on outcome measures was too few to enable conclusive comments to be made. Other studies have provided evidence that allowing unstructured use of websites may increase engagement with the website; however, this may or may not translate into behavior change [159]. Therefore, more empirical evidence is required.

Most resources were designed for adults generally, although a few included programs were designed for specific populations such as farmers, tertiary students, and expectant or new mothers. There were no programs identified in our searches that were designed for hard-to-reach groups such as culturally and linguistically diverse populations or men, and there was only 1 for people from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural background. Web-based interventions provide a useful avenue for administering targeted mental health support to populations who may face barriers to accessing traditional services for cultural reasons. These results highlight the need for more research and development of programs that meet the needs of these at-risk and underserved groups.

The use of a scoring system to evaluate and compare programs was based on a framework for evaluating internet-based interventions [40], as adapted in subsequent research [15,16]. This is a useful tool for comparisons across programs and between this research and past studies. However, items may not reflect the overall true value of a program to a particular consumer, with many elements of the program not being included in this scale and not necessarily being quantifiable as a yes or no item. Future research could extend this by examining how consumers and practitioners select an appropriate resource and the factors that they consider to be important in this choice. In addition, although we evaluated the usability of the programs, no completion rates of the included studies were investigated. Future studies should consider examining the completion rate of programs, as program attrition and nonuse attrition are persistent problems with digital interventions [160,161].

At the time of the literature search, there were no national standards for website developers and users to refer to when considering the selection of Australian web-based interventions for mental health. However, on November 30, 2020, the Australian Government released the National Safety and Quality Digital Mental Health Standards for health care providers to refer to when selecting digital media (including web-based programs) for the delivery of high-quality mental health care and suicide prevention (counseling or peer-based support) [162]. The purpose of the National Safety and Quality Digital Mental-Health Standards is to provide consumers and practitioners with information on which to base their selection of trustworthy resources and guide resource developers by providing quality standards. Familiarity and use of the standards, along with the findings from the present research, may help GPs and consumers select the most suitable web-based program for their needs. Although standards are now publicly available, an independent assessment tool to identify where a digital mental health service is meeting the standards or where it can improve is currently being developed and will not be available until late 2021. Similar reviews of this type in the future should include information on whether interventions have met these standards and whether this is a self- or independent assessment.

Overall, of the 52 programs, 9 (17%) addressed depression, 15 (29%) addressed anxiety, 13 (25%) addressed general mental well-being, and 13 (25%) addressed multiple issues. This is substantially lower than the 32 programs for depression and the 34 programs for anxiety identified by Renton et al [15] and Ashford et al [16], respectively. In part, this is because of the restriction of the current review to programs that were (1) free and (2) accessible to Australians, which excluded several currently available international programs such as Beating the Blues or Deprexis, which offer interventions for a fee or are not available to Australians. In addition, the results may highlight the difficulties consumers face in finding suitable programs through search engines [163]. Search engine results were based on the Australian version of Google; however, these results are likely to change over time, as do programs, and the same search conducted at a later date may yield different results. Our search terms were intentionally broad, and we did not require the terms to be used in conjunction with terms describing therapy or self-help. The purpose of broadening the search in this way was to mirror the type of search that a consumer is likely to perform (focused on the issue and not the intervention type).

A total of 52 web-based programs and web-based programs with downloadable worksheets or resources programs are currently freely available to help Australians with the management of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, or general mental well-being. Careful attention is needed by clinicians and consumers to determine whether the interventions they refer to, or access, are evidence-based and considered acceptable by other users, given the varied levels of acceptability and impact. This review complements existing resources by providing website summaries and a clear comparison of website features to inform clinicians and consumers and assist in the selection of the most suitable program for the individual. It also identified important gaps in the availability of free web-based interventions in Australia (eg, for culturally and linguistically diverse populations and based on ACT), which may inform future research and program development initiatives.