基于认知行为疗法的大学生数字心理健康干预的覆盖和接受:一项系统综述。

Laura D'Adamo , Layna Paraboschi , Anne Claire Grammer , Molly Fennig , Andrea K. Graham , Lauren H. Yaeger , Michelle G. Newman , Denise E. Wilfley , C. Barr Taylor , Daniel Eisenberg , Ellen E. Fitzsimmons-Craft
{"title":"基于认知行为疗法的大学生数字心理健康干预的覆盖和接受:一项系统综述。","authors":"Laura D'Adamo ,&nbsp;Layna Paraboschi ,&nbsp;Anne Claire Grammer ,&nbsp;Molly Fennig ,&nbsp;Andrea K. Graham ,&nbsp;Lauren H. Yaeger ,&nbsp;Michelle G. Newman ,&nbsp;Denise E. Wilfley ,&nbsp;C. Barr Taylor ,&nbsp;Daniel Eisenberg ,&nbsp;Ellen E. Fitzsimmons-Craft","doi":"10.1016/j.jbct.2023.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Mental health problems are increasing in prevalence among college students, yet few students receive treatment due to barriers such as insufficient resources in college counseling centers. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have potential to overcome barriers and offer accessible, evidence-based care to college students. However, to evaluate the true public health impact of evidence-based DMHIs, it is important to assess the reach and uptake rates of DMHIs on college campuses.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>We conducted a systematic review to examine the reach (i.e., % of invited students who express interest) and uptake (i.e., % of enrolled participants who initiate an intervention) of DMHIs based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for college students.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Eight databases were searched. Inclusion criteria included: (1) college population; (2) experimental design; (3) CBT-based intervention; (4) intervention targeting specific mental health conditions; and (5) digital intervention. Reach and uptake rates were calculated from data reported. A systematic narrative review framework was used to synthesize results.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 10,315 articles screened, 90 were included. Seventeen studies (19%) reported sufficient data to calculate reach; 35 studies (39%) reported uptake rates. Of studies that reported reach or uptake, most evaluated unguided (<em>n</em> = 20) or guided (<em>n</em> = 16) self-help programs. Measurement methods varied widely. Overall reach was low, whereas uptake was high among enrolled participants.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Despite evidence that improving reach and uptake can increase the public health impact of DMHIs, most studies did not report on either outcome. Suggested practices to improve these outcomes, and their reporting, are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36022,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","volume":"33 2","pages":"Pages 97-117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10506850/pdf/nihms-1926352.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reach and uptake of digital mental health interventions based on cognitive-behavioral therapy for college students: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Laura D'Adamo ,&nbsp;Layna Paraboschi ,&nbsp;Anne Claire Grammer ,&nbsp;Molly Fennig ,&nbsp;Andrea K. Graham ,&nbsp;Lauren H. Yaeger ,&nbsp;Michelle G. Newman ,&nbsp;Denise E. Wilfley ,&nbsp;C. Barr Taylor ,&nbsp;Daniel Eisenberg ,&nbsp;Ellen E. Fitzsimmons-Craft\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbct.2023.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Mental health problems are increasing in prevalence among college students, yet few students receive treatment due to barriers such as insufficient resources in college counseling centers. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have potential to overcome barriers and offer accessible, evidence-based care to college students. However, to evaluate the true public health impact of evidence-based DMHIs, it is important to assess the reach and uptake rates of DMHIs on college campuses.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>We conducted a systematic review to examine the reach (i.e., % of invited students who express interest) and uptake (i.e., % of enrolled participants who initiate an intervention) of DMHIs based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for college students.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Eight databases were searched. Inclusion criteria included: (1) college population; (2) experimental design; (3) CBT-based intervention; (4) intervention targeting specific mental health conditions; and (5) digital intervention. Reach and uptake rates were calculated from data reported. A systematic narrative review framework was used to synthesize results.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 10,315 articles screened, 90 were included. Seventeen studies (19%) reported sufficient data to calculate reach; 35 studies (39%) reported uptake rates. Of studies that reported reach or uptake, most evaluated unguided (<em>n</em> = 20) or guided (<em>n</em> = 16) self-help programs. Measurement methods varied widely. Overall reach was low, whereas uptake was high among enrolled participants.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Despite evidence that improving reach and uptake can increase the public health impact of DMHIs, most studies did not report on either outcome. Suggested practices to improve these outcomes, and their reporting, are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy\",\"volume\":\"33 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 97-117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10506850/pdf/nihms-1926352.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589979123000112\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589979123000112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:大学生的心理健康问题越来越普遍,但由于大学咨询中心资源不足等障碍,很少有学生接受治疗。数字心理健康干预(DMHI)有可能克服障碍,为大学生提供可获得的循证护理。然而,为了评估循证DMHIs对公共健康的真正影响,评估DMHIs在大学校园的覆盖率和吸收率是很重要的。目的:我们进行了一项系统综述,以检查基于大学生认知行为疗法(CBT)的DMHI的影响范围(即表示兴趣的受邀学生的%)和接受程度(即发起干预的注册参与者的%)。方法:检索8个数据库。纳入标准包括:(1)大学人群;(2) 实验设计;(3) 基于CBT的干预;(4) 针对特定心理健康状况的干预措施;以及(5)数字干预。根据报告的数据计算到达率和吸收率。采用系统叙述性审查框架来综合结果。结果:在10315篇筛选文章中,90篇被纳入。17项研究(19%)报告了足够的数据来计算覆盖范围;35项研究(39%)报告了摄取率。在报告达到或吸收的研究中,大多数评估了非指导(n=20)或指导(n=16)的自助计划。测量方法千差万别。总体覆盖率较低,而注册参与者的吸收率较高。讨论:尽管有证据表明,提高DMHI的覆盖率和吸收率可以增加对公共健康的影响,但大多数研究都没有报告这两种结果。讨论了改进这些成果的建议做法及其报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reach and uptake of digital mental health interventions based on cognitive-behavioral therapy for college students: A systematic review

Background

Mental health problems are increasing in prevalence among college students, yet few students receive treatment due to barriers such as insufficient resources in college counseling centers. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) have potential to overcome barriers and offer accessible, evidence-based care to college students. However, to evaluate the true public health impact of evidence-based DMHIs, it is important to assess the reach and uptake rates of DMHIs on college campuses.

Objectives

We conducted a systematic review to examine the reach (i.e., % of invited students who express interest) and uptake (i.e., % of enrolled participants who initiate an intervention) of DMHIs based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for college students.

Methods

Eight databases were searched. Inclusion criteria included: (1) college population; (2) experimental design; (3) CBT-based intervention; (4) intervention targeting specific mental health conditions; and (5) digital intervention. Reach and uptake rates were calculated from data reported. A systematic narrative review framework was used to synthesize results.

Results

Of 10,315 articles screened, 90 were included. Seventeen studies (19%) reported sufficient data to calculate reach; 35 studies (39%) reported uptake rates. Of studies that reported reach or uptake, most evaluated unguided (n = 20) or guided (n = 16) self-help programs. Measurement methods varied widely. Overall reach was low, whereas uptake was high among enrolled participants.

Discussion

Despite evidence that improving reach and uptake can increase the public health impact of DMHIs, most studies did not report on either outcome. Suggested practices to improve these outcomes, and their reporting, are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
60 days
期刊最新文献
The Benzodiazepine Dependence Questionnaire (BDEPQ): Development of a brief version and validation of a French adaptation Efficacy of online mental health education on occupational burnout among medical staff Analyzing data in single-case experimental designs: Objectives and available software options The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy in mental health problems of children and adolescents in child protection system: A meta-analysis Assessing user acceptance of a mental health app & its impact on depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder related knowledge: A mixed method experimental study
×
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