Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the recommended first-line treatment for insomnia. However, scaling this proven effective intervention to areas of high need remains a challenge, necessitating sensitive adaptation and evaluation.

A randomised waitlist-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of a hybrid digital CBT-I and emotion regulation (dCBT-I + ER) intervention delivered through workplaces. Participants with at least mild insomnia and depression or anxiety symptoms were randomised to the intervention or waitlist control groups. The intervention was delivered via a web-based platform and four video-conferencing therapy sessions. Participants tracked their sleep using actigraphy and a sleep diary that was used to pace the intervention delivered. Assessments occurred at baseline and 8 weeks post-randomisation, measuring insomnia, depression, anxiety, psychological well-being, quality of life, and work productivity.

Of the 159 participants (mean age 43.6 ± 9.4 years, 76.7% female, 80.5% white), 80 received the intervention and 79 were in the control group. The intervention group showed significant improvements in insomnia (F1, 134 = 71.46, p < .0001); depression (F1, 134 = 35.67, p < .0001); and anxiety (F1, 134 = 17.63, p < .0001), with large effect sizes (d = 0.7–1.5). Sleep diary data supported these findings, whereas actigraphy data did not. Improvements in psychological well-being were significant (F1, 132.13 = 10.64, p < 0.001), whereas quality of life, work productivity, and satisfaction outcomes were not.

This study suggests that a hybrid dCBT-I + ER intervention, delivered via workplaces, effectively improves insomnia, depression, and anxiety. It holds promise as a scalable solution, warranting further investigation into its long-term efficacy and economic impact.

Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) that meet the definition of a medical device are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK. The MHRA uses procedures that were originally developed for pharmaceuticals to assess the safety of DMHIs. There is recognition that this may not be ideal, as is evident by an ongoing consultation for reform led by the MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The aim of this study was to generate an experts’ consensus on how the medical regulatory method used for assessing safety could best be adapted for DMHIs.

An online Delphi study containing three rounds was conducted with an international panel of 20 experts with experience/knowledge in the field of UK digital mental health.

Sixty-four items were generated, of which 41 achieved consensus (64%). Consensus emerged around ten recommendations, falling into five main themes: Enhancing the quality of adverse events data in DMHIs; Re-defining serious adverse events for DMHIs; Reassessing short-term symptom deterioration in psychological interventions as a therapeutic risk; Maximising the benefit of the Yellow Card Scheme; and Developing a harmonised approach for assessing the safety of psychological interventions in general.

The implementation of the recommendations provided by this consensus could improve the assessment of safety of DMHIs, making them more effective in detecting and mitigating risk.