BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Depression is a global mental health problem. Therefore,mental health professionals need to develop interventions that are evidence-based and  cost-effective.  One  of  the  psychosocial  interventions  is  psychoeducation. However, a recent Google search on the effect of psychoeducation for depression suggests conflicting results calling for an analysis of studies to establish psychoeducation  effectiveness.The  goal  of  the  meta-analysis  is  to  examine randomized  controlled  trials (RCTs) overall effectiveness of psychoeducation for depression.
METHODS: EBSCOhost, PsychINFO, and Science Direct databases were searched using  the  keywords  'psychoeducation,'  'group  psychoeducation,'  'mental  health education,' 'depression,' 'depressive disorder,' and 'dysthymia' with year restriction of  2010-2016.  In  this  meta-analysis,  the  effect  size  (using  Hedges'  g  value),  Q statistics, and I2  were calculated under the random effects model aided by CMA v.3.To test for publication bias, trim-and-fill analysis, and fail-safe N were computed too.
RESULTS: A total of 1,560 patients from 11 studies were included in this analysis.Post-intervention results had Hedges' g-value of -0.293 (95% CI= -0.552--0.035) of psychoeducation for depression meaning low effect. Although notably, the overall effect size leans towards psychoeducation. The p-value is significant at .05 level,favoring  psychoeducation  (p=0.026).  The  studies  were  also  found  to  be  highly 2 heterogeneous (Q(10) = 55.467, p<.05, I 2 =81.971) under the random effects model, suggesting  high  inconsistency  on  the  studies  included  in  this  meta-analysis.  In testing for publication bias, the imputed effect size using trim-and-fill approach was -0.38558 (95% CI= -0.64926- -0.12189) while the result of fail-safe N suggested that 48 nil or null results would be needed to increase the p-value associated with the average effect above an alpha level of 0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: This  meta-analysis  may  suggest  that  psychoeducation  has  low effect on depression. Longer and more interactive approach can be done to ensure its long-term and maximal effectiveness. Publication bias is unlikely in this meta-analysis.  The  findings  provide  valuable  information  for  future psychoeducation   to   improve   content,   design,   quality,   and process that will benefit patients with depression.