Jasara N. Hogan, Richard E. Heyman, Amy M. Smith Slep
{"title":"电子 \"成瘾 \"筛查和治疗的元综述","authors":"Jasara N. Hogan, Richard E. Heyman, Amy M. Smith Slep","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":"113 ","pages":"Article 102468"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-review of screening and treatment of electronic “addictions”\",\"authors\":\"Jasara N. Hogan, Richard E. Heyman, Amy M. Smith Slep\",\"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\":\"113 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102468\"},\"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}","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}
A meta-review of screening and treatment of electronic “addictions”
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.
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.