A meta-review of screening and treatment of electronic “addictions”

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102468
{"title":"A meta-review of screening and treatment of electronic “addictions”","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Concerns surrounding electronic addictions, an umbrella term including any clinically significant technology-based addictive problem, have increased as technology has advanced. Although researchers and clinicians have observed detrimental effects associated with excessive technology use, there is no agreed-on definition or set of criteria for these problems. The lack of a consistent understanding of electronic addictions has led to a lack of consistency in both assessment and treatment studies, precluding strong recommendations for effective screening and clinical intervention. This meta-review integrates findings from 22 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of electronic addictions to determine which measures and interventions may effectively measure and treat electronic addictions. We conducted a meta-review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Findings suggest that although some measures may have good internal consistency and reliability among college students, there was a general lack of consistency in how measures were used across studies, making comparison difficult. Psychological and exercise-based interventions were shown to reduce symptoms of electronic addictions short-term, but no treatment was superior to others in overall symptom reduction. Most included reviews raise serious concerns about the lack of consensus on what constitutes an electronic addiction. Consequently, it was not possible to draw conclusions about the overall efficacy of any measurement tools or interventions. We provide suggestions for next steps to establish the phenomenology of electronic addictions before additional research on assessment and intervention is conducted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000898","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Concerns surrounding electronic addictions, an umbrella term including any clinically significant technology-based addictive problem, have increased as technology has advanced. Although researchers and clinicians have observed detrimental effects associated with excessive technology use, there is no agreed-on definition or set of criteria for these problems. The lack of a consistent understanding of electronic addictions has led to a lack of consistency in both assessment and treatment studies, precluding strong recommendations for effective screening and clinical intervention. This meta-review integrates findings from 22 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of electronic addictions to determine which measures and interventions may effectively measure and treat electronic addictions. We conducted a meta-review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Findings suggest that although some measures may have good internal consistency and reliability among college students, there was a general lack of consistency in how measures were used across studies, making comparison difficult. Psychological and exercise-based interventions were shown to reduce symptoms of electronic addictions short-term, but no treatment was superior to others in overall symptom reduction. Most included reviews raise serious concerns about the lack of consensus on what constitutes an electronic addiction. Consequently, it was not possible to draw conclusions about the overall efficacy of any measurement tools or interventions. We provide suggestions for next steps to establish the phenomenology of electronic addictions before additional research on assessment and intervention is conducted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子 "成瘾 "筛查和治疗的元综述
电子成瘾是一个总括性术语,包括任何具有临床意义的以技术为基础的成瘾问题,随着技术的进步,人们对电子成瘾的关注也越来越多。尽管研究人员和临床医生已经观察到过度使用技术所带来的有害影响,但对这些问题并没有一致的定义或标准。由于对电子成瘾缺乏一致的认识,导致评估和治疗研究缺乏一致性,无法为有效筛查和临床干预提供有力的建议。本荟萃综述整合了 22 项关于电子成瘾的系统综述和荟萃分析的研究结果,以确定哪些措施和干预方法可以有效衡量和治疗电子成瘾。我们采用《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南进行了荟萃综述。研究结果表明,尽管某些测量方法在大学生中可能具有良好的内部一致性和可靠性,但不同研究中使用的测量方法普遍缺乏一致性,因此很难进行比较。研究表明,心理干预和运动干预能在短期内减轻电子成瘾的症状,但在总体症状减轻方面,没有一种治疗方法优于其他治疗方法。大多数收录的综述都对什么是电子成瘾缺乏共识表示严重关切。因此,我们无法对任何测量工具或干预措施的总体疗效得出结论。我们对下一步工作提出了建议,以便在开展更多有关评估和干预的研究之前,确定电子成瘾的现象学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Factors related to help-seeking and service utilization for professional mental healthcare among young people: An umbrella review Positive health outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep and paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates Gender nonconformity and common mental health problems: A meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1