Digital Interventions for Symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Internet Research Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.2196/54941
Julia A B Lindsay, Niall M McGowan, Thomas Henning, Eli Harriss, Kate E A Saunders
{"title":"Digital Interventions for Symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Julia A B Lindsay, Niall M McGowan, Thomas Henning, Eli Harriss, Kate E A Saunders","doi":"10.2196/54941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental health condition with insufficient care availability worldwide. Digital mental health interventions could reduce this treatment gap. Persuasive system design (PSD) is a conceptual framework outlining elements of digital interventions that support behavior change.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to characterize digital interventions targeting BPD symptoms, assess treatment efficacy, and identify its association with intervention features, including PSD elements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of automated digital interventions targeting symptoms of BPD was conducted. Eligible studies recruited participants aged ≥18 years, based on a diagnosis of BPD or one of its common comorbidities, or as healthy volunteers. OVID Embase, OVID MEDLINE, OVID PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched on July 19, 2022, and February 28, 2023. Intervention characteristics were tabulated. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) determined treatment effects separately for each core symptom of BPD using Hedges g. Associations between the treatment effect and intervention features, including PSD elements, were assessed by subgroup analysis (Cochran Q test). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for pre-post studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 40 (0.47%) publications out of 8520 met the inclusion criteria of this review, representing 6611 participants. Studies comprised examinations of 38 unique interventions, of which 32 (84%) were RCTs. Synthesis found that included interventions had the following transdiagnostic treatment targets: severity of BPD symptoms (4/38, 11%), suicidal ideation (17/38, 45%), paranoia (5/38, 13%), nonsuicidal self-injury (5/38, 13%), emotion regulation (4/38, 11%), and anger (3/38, 8%). Common therapeutic approaches were based on dialectical behavioral therapy (8/38, 21%), cognitive behavioral therapy (6/38, 16%), or both (5/38, 13%). Meta-analysis found significant effects of digital intervention for both symptoms of paranoia (Hedges g=-0.52, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.18; P=.01) and suicidal ideation (Hedges g=-0.13, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; P=.03) but not overall BPD symptom severity (Hedges g=-0.17, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.10; P=.72). Subgroup analysis of suicidal ideation interventions found that evidence-based treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy were significantly more effective than alternative modalities (Cochran Q=4.87; P=.03). The degree of human support was not associated with the treatment effect. Interventions targeting suicidal ideation that used reminders, offered self-monitoring, and encouraged users to rehearse behaviors were associated with a greater reduction in ideation severity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evidence suggests that digital interventions may reduce the symptoms of suicidal ideation and paranoia and that the design of digital interventions may impact the efficacy of treatments targeting suicidal ideation. These results support the use of transdiagnostic digital interventions for paranoia and suicidal ideation.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022358270; https://tinyurl.com/3mz7uc7k.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"26 ","pages":"e54941"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54941","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental health condition with insufficient care availability worldwide. Digital mental health interventions could reduce this treatment gap. Persuasive system design (PSD) is a conceptual framework outlining elements of digital interventions that support behavior change.

Objective: This systematic review aims to characterize digital interventions targeting BPD symptoms, assess treatment efficacy, and identify its association with intervention features, including PSD elements.

Methods: A systematic review of automated digital interventions targeting symptoms of BPD was conducted. Eligible studies recruited participants aged ≥18 years, based on a diagnosis of BPD or one of its common comorbidities, or as healthy volunteers. OVID Embase, OVID MEDLINE, OVID PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched on July 19, 2022, and February 28, 2023. Intervention characteristics were tabulated. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) determined treatment effects separately for each core symptom of BPD using Hedges g. Associations between the treatment effect and intervention features, including PSD elements, were assessed by subgroup analysis (Cochran Q test). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for pre-post studies.

Results: A total of 40 (0.47%) publications out of 8520 met the inclusion criteria of this review, representing 6611 participants. Studies comprised examinations of 38 unique interventions, of which 32 (84%) were RCTs. Synthesis found that included interventions had the following transdiagnostic treatment targets: severity of BPD symptoms (4/38, 11%), suicidal ideation (17/38, 45%), paranoia (5/38, 13%), nonsuicidal self-injury (5/38, 13%), emotion regulation (4/38, 11%), and anger (3/38, 8%). Common therapeutic approaches were based on dialectical behavioral therapy (8/38, 21%), cognitive behavioral therapy (6/38, 16%), or both (5/38, 13%). Meta-analysis found significant effects of digital intervention for both symptoms of paranoia (Hedges g=-0.52, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.18; P=.01) and suicidal ideation (Hedges g=-0.13, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; P=.03) but not overall BPD symptom severity (Hedges g=-0.17, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.10; P=.72). Subgroup analysis of suicidal ideation interventions found that evidence-based treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy and dialectical behavior therapy were significantly more effective than alternative modalities (Cochran Q=4.87; P=.03). The degree of human support was not associated with the treatment effect. Interventions targeting suicidal ideation that used reminders, offered self-monitoring, and encouraged users to rehearse behaviors were associated with a greater reduction in ideation severity.

Conclusions: Evidence suggests that digital interventions may reduce the symptoms of suicidal ideation and paranoia and that the design of digital interventions may impact the efficacy of treatments targeting suicidal ideation. These results support the use of transdiagnostic digital interventions for paranoia and suicidal ideation.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42022358270; https://tinyurl.com/3mz7uc7k.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of Illness Control, Coherence, and Self-Efficacy Following a Web-Based Lifestyle Program for Multiple Sclerosis: A Qualitative Analysis of Semistructured Interviews. Messenger App-Based Information Provision for Promoting Social Participation to Enhance Well-Being Among Community-Dwelling Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparing Health Survey Data Cost and Quality Between Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Ipsos' KnowledgePanel: Observational Study. Reporting Guidelines for the Early-Phase Clinical Evaluation of Applications Using Extended Reality: RATE-XR Qualitative Study Guideline. Digital Interventions for Symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder: Systematic Review and 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