To synthesize results of six controlled trials of self-care interventions for depression and/or anxiety, focusing on five trials in which lay guidance was compared to self-directed use of the same self-care tools.

The trials were conducted in Canada in different target populations. Self-care tools were adapted to each population. Guidance was provided in 3–15 calls over a period of 6–26 weeks. Depression and/or anxiety were assessed at follow-up (6–26 weeks). Pooled analyses used a meta-analytic approach. Engagement with the self-care tools was compared using the standardized difference or Cohen's d effect size.

In studies with homogeneous outcomes (three for depression, four for anxiety), the pooled effect sizes of guidance vs. self-directed use of the self-care tools were 0.36 (95% CI 0.10, 0.62, N = 235) for depression and 0.21 (95% CI -0.03, 0.44, N = 285) for anxiety. Guidance consistently led to greater engagement with the tools.

The intervention model is a potentially sustainable and accessible alternative to professionally guided self-care for people with mild-moderate depression. Factors which may have limited implementation success include: co-interventions, reduced number of guide calls (3 vs 6 or more), and delivery to dyads (patient-caregiver).