Jennifer Swint, Margaret Fischer, Wei Zhang, Xi Zhang
{"title":"无国界治疗:远程医疗在扩大心理健康覆盖面方面作用的系统回顾","authors":"Jennifer Swint, Margaret Fischer, Wei Zhang, Xi Zhang","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.30.24311208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telehealth services in mental healthcare. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for mental health conditions compared to traditional face-to-face treatment.\nMethods: We searched major electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2023. Studies comparing telehealth interventions to face-to-face treatment for adults with mental health disorders were included. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.\nResults: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 4,827 participants across various mental health conditions. Telehealth interventions demonstrated non-inferiority to face-to-face treatment for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.09]) and anxiety disorders (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07]). For post-traumatic stress disorder, telehealth showed a small but significant advantage (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.05]). Patient satisfaction and therapeutic alliance were comparable between telehealth and face-to-face interventions. However, dropout rates were slightly higher in telehealth conditions (risk ratio = 1.27, 95% CI [1.11, 1.46]).\nConclusion: This review suggests that telehealth interventions are generally as effective as face-to-face treatment for common mental health disorders. While promising, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to heterogeneity in study designs and interventions. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and strategies to improve engagement in telehealth settings.","PeriodicalId":501556,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Therapy Without Borders: A Systematic Review on Telehealth's Role in Expanding Mental Health Access\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Swint, Margaret Fischer, Wei Zhang, Xi Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.07.30.24311208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telehealth services in mental healthcare. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for mental health conditions compared to traditional face-to-face treatment.\\nMethods: We searched major electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2023. Studies comparing telehealth interventions to face-to-face treatment for adults with mental health disorders were included. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.\\nResults: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 4,827 participants across various mental health conditions. Telehealth interventions demonstrated non-inferiority to face-to-face treatment for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.09]) and anxiety disorders (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07]). For post-traumatic stress disorder, telehealth showed a small but significant advantage (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.05]). Patient satisfaction and therapeutic alliance were comparable between telehealth and face-to-face interventions. However, dropout rates were slightly higher in telehealth conditions (risk ratio = 1.27, 95% CI [1.11, 1.46]).\\nConclusion: This review suggests that telehealth interventions are generally as effective as face-to-face treatment for common mental health disorders. While promising, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to heterogeneity in study designs and interventions. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and strategies to improve engagement in telehealth settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.30.24311208\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.30.24311208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:COVID-19 大流行加速了远程医疗服务在精神卫生保健领域的应用。本系统性综述旨在评估远程医疗干预对精神疾病的疗效,并与传统的面对面治疗进行比较:我们在主要电子数据库(PubMed、PsycINFO、CINAHL 和 Cochrane Library)中检索了 2010 年至 2023 年间发表的随机对照试验。其中包括比较远程医疗干预与面对面治疗成人精神疾病的研究。两名独立评审员对研究质量进行评估并提取数据。在适当的情况下进行了元分析:有 35 项研究符合纳入标准,涉及各种精神健康状况的 4827 名参与者。在抑郁症(标准化平均差 [SMD] = -0.03,95% CI [-0.15, 0.09])和焦虑症(SMD = -0.06,95% CI [-0.19, 0.07])方面,远程医疗干预不劣于面对面治疗。在创伤后应激障碍方面,远程医疗显示出微小但显著的优势(SMD = -0.21,95% CI [-0.37,-0.05])。远程医疗和面对面干预的患者满意度和治疗联盟相当。然而,远程医疗条件下的辍学率略高(风险比 = 1.27,95% CI [1.11,1.46]):本综述表明,对于常见的心理健康障碍,远程医疗干预通常与面对面治疗一样有效。虽然这些研究结果很有希望,但由于研究设计和干预措施存在异质性,因此应谨慎解读。未来的研究应关注长期结果、成本效益以及提高远程保健参与度的策略。
Therapy Without Borders: A Systematic Review on Telehealth's Role in Expanding Mental Health Access
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telehealth services in mental healthcare. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for mental health conditions compared to traditional face-to-face treatment.
Methods: We searched major electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2023. Studies comparing telehealth interventions to face-to-face treatment for adults with mental health disorders were included. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.
Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 4,827 participants across various mental health conditions. Telehealth interventions demonstrated non-inferiority to face-to-face treatment for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.09]) and anxiety disorders (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07]). For post-traumatic stress disorder, telehealth showed a small but significant advantage (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.05]). Patient satisfaction and therapeutic alliance were comparable between telehealth and face-to-face interventions. However, dropout rates were slightly higher in telehealth conditions (risk ratio = 1.27, 95% CI [1.11, 1.46]).
Conclusion: This review suggests that telehealth interventions are generally as effective as face-to-face treatment for common mental health disorders. While promising, these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to heterogeneity in study designs and interventions. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and strategies to improve engagement in telehealth settings.