Therapist-supported Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy yields similar effects as face-to-face therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 73.3 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine World Psychiatry Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1002/wps.21088
Erik Hedman-Lagerlöf, Per Carlbring, Frank Svärdman, Heleen Riper, Pim Cuijpers, Gerhard Andersson
{"title":"Therapist-supported Internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy yields similar effects as face-to-face therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Erik Hedman-Lagerlöf,&nbsp;Per Carlbring,&nbsp;Frank Svärdman,&nbsp;Heleen Riper,&nbsp;Pim Cuijpers,&nbsp;Gerhard Andersson","doi":"10.1002/wps.21088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Providing therapist-guided cognitive behaviour therapy via the Internet (ICBT) has advantages, but a central research question is to what extent similar clinical effects can be obtained as with gold-standard face-to-face cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). In a previous meta-analysis published in this journal, which was updated in 2018, we found evidence that the pooled effects for the two formats were equivalent in the treatment of psychiatric and somatic disorders, but the number of published randomized trials was relatively low (n=20). As this is a field that moves rapidly, the aim of the current study was to conduct an update of our systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effects of ICBT vs. face-to-face CBT for psychiatric and somatic disorders in adults. We searched the PubMed database for relevant studies published from 2016 to 2022. The main inclusion criteria were that studies had to compare ICBT to face-to-face CBT using a randomized controlled design and targeting adult populations. Quality assessment was made using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria (Version 1), and the main outcome estimate was the pooled standardized effect size (Hedges' g) using a random effects model. We screened 5,601 records and included 11 new randomized trials, adding them to the 20 previously identified ones (total n=31). Sixteen different clinical conditions were targeted in the included studies. Half of the trials were in the fields of depression/depressive symptoms or some form of anxiety disorder. The pooled effect size across all disorders was g=0.02 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.14) and the quality of the included studies was acceptable. This meta-analysis further supports the notion that therapist-supported ICBT yields similar effects as face-to-face CBT.</p>","PeriodicalId":23858,"journal":{"name":"World Psychiatry","volume":"22 2","pages":"305-314"},"PeriodicalIF":73.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10168168/pdf/WPS-22-305.pdf","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Providing therapist-guided cognitive behaviour therapy via the Internet (ICBT) has advantages, but a central research question is to what extent similar clinical effects can be obtained as with gold-standard face-to-face cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). In a previous meta-analysis published in this journal, which was updated in 2018, we found evidence that the pooled effects for the two formats were equivalent in the treatment of psychiatric and somatic disorders, but the number of published randomized trials was relatively low (n=20). As this is a field that moves rapidly, the aim of the current study was to conduct an update of our systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effects of ICBT vs. face-to-face CBT for psychiatric and somatic disorders in adults. We searched the PubMed database for relevant studies published from 2016 to 2022. The main inclusion criteria were that studies had to compare ICBT to face-to-face CBT using a randomized controlled design and targeting adult populations. Quality assessment was made using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria (Version 1), and the main outcome estimate was the pooled standardized effect size (Hedges' g) using a random effects model. We screened 5,601 records and included 11 new randomized trials, adding them to the 20 previously identified ones (total n=31). Sixteen different clinical conditions were targeted in the included studies. Half of the trials were in the fields of depression/depressive symptoms or some form of anxiety disorder. The pooled effect size across all disorders was g=0.02 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.14) and the quality of the included studies was acceptable. This meta-analysis further supports the notion that therapist-supported ICBT yields similar effects as face-to-face CBT.

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
治疗师支持的基于互联网的认知行为疗法对精神和躯体疾病的治疗效果与面对面治疗相似:一项最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
通过互联网提供治疗师指导的认知行为治疗(ICBT)有其优势,但一个核心研究问题是,在多大程度上可以获得与黄金标准的面对面认知行为治疗(CBT)相似的临床效果。在该杂志之前发表的一项荟萃分析(于2018年更新)中,我们发现有证据表明,这两种格式在治疗精神和躯体疾病方面的综合效果是相同的,但已发表的随机试验数量相对较少(n=20)。由于这是一个快速发展的领域,本研究的目的是对ICBT与面对面CBT治疗成人精神和躯体疾病的临床效果进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们检索了PubMed数据库中2016年至2022年发表的相关研究。主要纳入标准是研究必须比较ICBT和面对面CBT,采用随机对照设计,目标人群为成人。使用Cochrane偏倚风险标准(版本1)进行质量评估,主要结果估计是使用随机效应模型的合并标准化效应大小(Hedges' g)。我们筛选了5601项记录,并纳入了11项新的随机试验,将它们添加到先前确定的20项试验中(总n=31)。纳入的研究针对16种不同的临床情况。一半的试验是在抑郁/抑郁症状或某种形式的焦虑障碍领域。所有疾病的合并效应量为g=0.02 (95% CI: -0.09至0.14),纳入研究的质量是可以接受的。这项荟萃分析进一步支持了这样一种观点,即治疗师支持的ICBT与面对面的CBT效果相似。
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
World Psychiatry
World Psychiatry Nursing-Psychiatric Mental Health
CiteScore
64.10
自引率
7.40%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: World Psychiatry is the official journal of the World Psychiatric Association. It aims to disseminate information on significant clinical, service, and research developments in the mental health field. World Psychiatry is published three times per year and is sent free of charge to psychiatrists.The recipient psychiatrists' names and addresses are provided by WPA member societies and sections.The language used in the journal is designed to be understandable by the majority of mental health professionals worldwide.
期刊最新文献
The contribution of the WPA to the development of the ICD-11 CDDR. A report from the WPA Working Group on Providing Mental Health Care for Migrants and Refugees. Global launch of the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements (CDDR). Addictive disorders through the lens of the WPA Section on Addiction Psychiatry. Physician-assisted dying in people with mental health conditions - whose choice?
×
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