Olga-Maria Panagiotopoulou
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Olga-Maria Panagiotopoulou has a total of 25 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Lingyao Tong
Department of Clinical, Neuro & Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 shared publications - Pim Cuijpers
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3 shared publications - Clara Miguel
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
2 shared publications - Eirini Karyotaki
Department of Clinical, Neuro & Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 shared publications - Alan W. Gemmill
Parent-Infant Research Institute, Austin Health, 300 Waterdale Road, Heidelberg Heights, Melbourne, VIC 3081, Australia
1 shared publication - Ana Fonseca
University of Coimbra, Center for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Coimbra, Portugal
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 3 September 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Internet Interventions
- Vol. 46, 100993
Modifiers of effectiveness and deterioration, and prognostic factors of adherence in internet-based interventions for treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
- 3 September 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Internet Interventions
- Vol. 46, 100993
Open AccessModifiers of effectiveness and deterioration, and prognostic factors of adherence in internet-based interventions for treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
- Open Access
- 14 June 2024
- Published by Elsevier in EBioMedicine
- Vol. 105, 105208
The effectiveness of self-guided interventions in adults with depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 14 June 2024
- Published by Elsevier in EBioMedicine
- Vol. 105, 105208
Open AccessThe effectiveness of self-guided interventions in adults with depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Open Access
- 23 August 2023
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Psychological Medicine
- Vol. 53 (16) , 7473-7483
Psychotherapy for adult depression in low- and middle-income countries: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Previous meta-analyses on psychotherapy for adult depression have found a larger treatment effect in non-Western trials compared to Western trials (i.e. North America, Europe, and Australia). However, factors contributing to this difference remain unclear. This study investigated different study characteristics between Western and non-Western trials and examined their association with effect size estimates. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (01–09–2022). We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared psychotherapy with a control condition. The validity of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1). Effect sizes were pooled using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also conducted. We identified 405 eligible trials, among which 105 trials (117 comparisons, 16 304 participants) were from non-Western countries. We confirmed that non-Western trials had a larger treatment effect (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90–1.31) than Western trials (g = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52–0.62). Trials from non-Western countries also had more usual care controls, higher risk of bias, larger sample sizes, lower mean ages, younger adults, more group-based interventions, and other recruitment methods (e.g. systematic screening; p < 0.05). The larger effect sizes found in non-Western trials were related to the presence of wait-list controls, high risk of bias, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and clinician-diagnosed depression (p < 0.05). The larger treatment effects observed in non-Western trials may result from the high heterogeneous study design and relatively low validity. Further research on long-term effects, adolescent groups, and individual-level data are still needed.
- 23 August 2023
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Psychological Medicine
- Vol. 53 (16) , 7473-7483
Open AccessPsychotherapy for adult depression in low- and middle-income countries: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Previous meta-analyses on psychotherapy for adult depression have found a larger treatment effect in non-Western trials compared to Western trials (i.e. North America, Europe, and Australia). However, factors contributing to this difference remain unclear. This study investigated different study characteristics between Western and non-Western trials and examined their association with effect size estimates. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (01–09–2022). We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared psychotherapy with a control condition. The validity of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1). Effect sizes were pooled using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also conducted. We identified 405 eligible trials, among which 105 trials (117 comparisons, 16 304 participants) were from non-Western countries. We confirmed that non-Western trials had a larger treatment effect (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90–1.31) than Western trials (g = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52–0.62). Trials from non-Western countries also had more usual care controls, higher risk of bias, larger sample sizes, lower mean ages, younger adults, more group-based interventions, and other recruitment methods (e.g. systematic screening; p < 0.05). The larger effect sizes found in non-Western trials were related to the presence of wait-list controls, high risk of bias, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and clinician-diagnosed depression (p < 0.05). The larger treatment effects observed in non-Western trials may result from the high heterogeneous study design and relatively low validity. Further research on long-term effects, adolescent groups, and individual-level data are still needed.