针对失独者长期悲伤症状的法语网络干预:随机对照试验。

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR Formative Research Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.2196/57294
Anik Debrot, Liliane Efinger, Maya Kheyar, Valentino Pomini, Laurent Berthoud
{"title":"针对失独者长期悲伤症状的法语网络干预:随机对照试验。","authors":"Anik Debrot, Liliane Efinger, Maya Kheyar, Valentino Pomini, Laurent Berthoud","doi":"10.2196/57294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Losing a loved one, through death or separation, counts among the most stressful life events and is detrimental to health and well-being. About 15% of people show clinically significant difficulties coping with such an event. Web-based interventions (WBIs) are effective for a variety of mental health disorders, including prolonged grief. However, no validated WBI is available in French for treating prolonged grief symptoms.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy and adherence rates of 2 WBIs for prolonged grief symptoms following the loss of a loved one through death or romantic separation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>LIVIA 2.0 was developed relying on theoretical and empirical findings on bereavement processes and WBIs, and is compared with LIVIA 1, which has already demonstrated its efficacy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial and provided on-demand guidance to participants. Outcomes were assessed through web-based questionnaires before the intervention, after the intervention (12 weeks later), and at follow-up (24 weeks later). Primary outcomes were grief symptoms, depressive symptoms, and well-being. Secondary outcomes were anxiety symptoms, grief coping strategies, aspects related to self-identity, and program satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 62 participants were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] sample), 29 (47%) in LIVIA 2.0 (active arm) and 33 (53%) in LIVIA 1 (control arm). The dropout rate was 40% (37/62), and 10 participants were removed due to exclusion criteria, leading to a final per-protocol sample of 27 (44%) completers who differed from noncompleters only based on reporting fewer anxiety symptoms (t<sub>60</sub>=3.03; P=.004). Participants who are separated reported more grief symptoms (t<sub>60</sub>=2.22; P=.03) and attachment anxiety (t<sub>60</sub>=2.26; P=.03), compared to participants who are bereaved. There were pre-post within-group differences for both programs in the ITT sample, with significant reductions in grief (Cohen d=-0.90), depressive symptoms (Cohen d=-0.31), and centrality of the loss (Cohen d=-0.45). The same pattern was observed in the per-protocol sample, with the exception that anxiety symptoms also significantly diminished (Cohen d=-0.45). No difference was found in efficacy between the 2 programs (all P>.33). Participants (ITT sample) reported overall high levels of program satisfaction (mean 3.18, SD 0.54; over a maximum of 4). Effect stability was confirmed at the 6-month follow-up for all outcomes, with an improvement in self-concept clarity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 2 grief-related WBIs were effective in reducing grief, depressive and anxiety symptoms for participants who are bereaved or separated. The analyses did not reveal any pre-post between-group differences, suggesting that the innovations brought to LIVIA 2.0 did not significantly affect the outcome. However, caution is warranted with the interpretation of the results given the limited power of the sample, which only allows the detection of medium effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05219760; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05219760.</p><p><strong>International registered report identifier (irrid): </strong>RR2-10.2196/39026.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11525088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A French-Language Web-Based Intervention Targeting Prolonged Grief Symptoms in People Who Are Bereaved and Separated: Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Anik Debrot, Liliane Efinger, Maya Kheyar, Valentino Pomini, Laurent Berthoud\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/57294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Losing a loved one, through death or separation, counts among the most stressful life events and is detrimental to health and well-being. About 15% of people show clinically significant difficulties coping with such an event. Web-based interventions (WBIs) are effective for a variety of mental health disorders, including prolonged grief. However, no validated WBI is available in French for treating prolonged grief symptoms.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy and adherence rates of 2 WBIs for prolonged grief symptoms following the loss of a loved one through death or romantic separation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>LIVIA 2.0 was developed relying on theoretical and empirical findings on bereavement processes and WBIs, and is compared with LIVIA 1, which has already demonstrated its efficacy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial and provided on-demand guidance to participants. Outcomes were assessed through web-based questionnaires before the intervention, after the intervention (12 weeks later), and at follow-up (24 weeks later). Primary outcomes were grief symptoms, depressive symptoms, and well-being. Secondary outcomes were anxiety symptoms, grief coping strategies, aspects related to self-identity, and program satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 62 participants were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] sample), 29 (47%) in LIVIA 2.0 (active arm) and 33 (53%) in LIVIA 1 (control arm). The dropout rate was 40% (37/62), and 10 participants were removed due to exclusion criteria, leading to a final per-protocol sample of 27 (44%) completers who differed from noncompleters only based on reporting fewer anxiety symptoms (t<sub>60</sub>=3.03; P=.004). Participants who are separated reported more grief symptoms (t<sub>60</sub>=2.22; P=.03) and attachment anxiety (t<sub>60</sub>=2.26; P=.03), compared to participants who are bereaved. There were pre-post within-group differences for both programs in the ITT sample, with significant reductions in grief (Cohen d=-0.90), depressive symptoms (Cohen d=-0.31), and centrality of the loss (Cohen d=-0.45). The same pattern was observed in the per-protocol sample, with the exception that anxiety symptoms also significantly diminished (Cohen d=-0.45). No difference was found in efficacy between the 2 programs (all P>.33). Participants (ITT sample) reported overall high levels of program satisfaction (mean 3.18, SD 0.54; over a maximum of 4). Effect stability was confirmed at the 6-month follow-up for all outcomes, with an improvement in self-concept clarity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The 2 grief-related WBIs were effective in reducing grief, depressive and anxiety symptoms for participants who are bereaved or separated. The analyses did not reveal any pre-post between-group differences, suggesting that the innovations brought to LIVIA 2.0 did not significantly affect the outcome. However, caution is warranted with the interpretation of the results given the limited power of the sample, which only allows the detection of medium effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05219760; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05219760.</p><p><strong>International registered report identifier (irrid): </strong>RR2-10.2196/39026.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11525088/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/57294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/57294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:失去亲人(死亡或分离)是人生中压力最大的事件之一,对健康和幸福有害无益。约有 15%的人在应对此类事件时表现出明显的临床困难。基于网络的干预(WBIs)对包括长期悲伤在内的各种心理健康疾病都很有效。然而,目前还没有经过验证的法语 WBI 可用于治疗长期悲伤症状:本研究旨在比较两种 WBI 对因死亡或恋爱分离而失去亲人后的长期悲伤症状的疗效和坚持率:LIVIA 2.0 是根据丧亲过程和 WBI 的理论和实证研究结果开发的,并与 LIVIA 1 进行了比较,后者已经证明了其疗效。我们进行了一项随机对照试验,并为参与者提供了按需指导。结果通过干预前、干预后(12 周后)和随访时(24 周后)的网络问卷进行评估。主要结果是悲伤症状、抑郁症状和幸福感。次要结果为焦虑症状、悲伤应对策略、自我认同相关方面以及项目满意度:共有 62 名参与者接受了随机治疗(意向治疗[ITT]样本),其中 29 人(47%)参加了 LIVIA 2.0(积极治疗组),33 人(53%)参加了 LIVIA 1(对照治疗组)。辍学率为 40% (37/62),10 名参与者因排除标准而被剔除,最终按协议完成治疗的样本为 27 人 (44%),他们与未完成治疗者的区别仅在于报告的焦虑症状较少 (t60=3.03; P=.004)。与失去亲人的参与者相比,失散的参与者报告了更多的悲伤症状(t60=2.22;P=.03)和依恋焦虑(t60=2.26;P=.03)。在 ITT 样本中,两个项目都存在前后组内差异,悲伤(Cohen d=-0.90)、抑郁症状(Cohen d=-0.31)和失去亲人的中心性(Cohen d=-0.45)显著降低。除了焦虑症状也显著减轻(Cohen d=-0.45)之外,按协议样本中也观察到了相同的模式。两个方案的疗效没有差异(P>.33)。参与者(ITT 样本)对项目的总体满意度很高(平均 3.18,标准差 0.54;最多 4 次)。6个月的随访证实了所有结果的效果稳定性,自我概念清晰度有所提高:结论:这两项与悲伤相关的 WBI 能有效减轻丧亲或离异参与者的悲伤、抑郁和焦虑症状。分析没有发现任何组间前后差异,这表明 LIVIA 2.0 的创新并未对结果产生显著影响。不过,由于样本的力量有限,只能检测到中等程度的效应,因此对结果的解释需要谨慎:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05219760;https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05219760.International 注册报告标识符(irrid):RR2-10.2196/39026。
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
A French-Language Web-Based Intervention Targeting Prolonged Grief Symptoms in People Who Are Bereaved and Separated: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Losing a loved one, through death or separation, counts among the most stressful life events and is detrimental to health and well-being. About 15% of people show clinically significant difficulties coping with such an event. Web-based interventions (WBIs) are effective for a variety of mental health disorders, including prolonged grief. However, no validated WBI is available in French for treating prolonged grief symptoms.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and adherence rates of 2 WBIs for prolonged grief symptoms following the loss of a loved one through death or romantic separation.

Methods: LIVIA 2.0 was developed relying on theoretical and empirical findings on bereavement processes and WBIs, and is compared with LIVIA 1, which has already demonstrated its efficacy. We conducted a randomized controlled trial and provided on-demand guidance to participants. Outcomes were assessed through web-based questionnaires before the intervention, after the intervention (12 weeks later), and at follow-up (24 weeks later). Primary outcomes were grief symptoms, depressive symptoms, and well-being. Secondary outcomes were anxiety symptoms, grief coping strategies, aspects related to self-identity, and program satisfaction.

Results: In total, 62 participants were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] sample), 29 (47%) in LIVIA 2.0 (active arm) and 33 (53%) in LIVIA 1 (control arm). The dropout rate was 40% (37/62), and 10 participants were removed due to exclusion criteria, leading to a final per-protocol sample of 27 (44%) completers who differed from noncompleters only based on reporting fewer anxiety symptoms (t60=3.03; P=.004). Participants who are separated reported more grief symptoms (t60=2.22; P=.03) and attachment anxiety (t60=2.26; P=.03), compared to participants who are bereaved. There were pre-post within-group differences for both programs in the ITT sample, with significant reductions in grief (Cohen d=-0.90), depressive symptoms (Cohen d=-0.31), and centrality of the loss (Cohen d=-0.45). The same pattern was observed in the per-protocol sample, with the exception that anxiety symptoms also significantly diminished (Cohen d=-0.45). No difference was found in efficacy between the 2 programs (all P>.33). Participants (ITT sample) reported overall high levels of program satisfaction (mean 3.18, SD 0.54; over a maximum of 4). Effect stability was confirmed at the 6-month follow-up for all outcomes, with an improvement in self-concept clarity.

Conclusions: The 2 grief-related WBIs were effective in reducing grief, depressive and anxiety symptoms for participants who are bereaved or separated. The analyses did not reveal any pre-post between-group differences, suggesting that the innovations brought to LIVIA 2.0 did not significantly affect the outcome. However, caution is warranted with the interpretation of the results given the limited power of the sample, which only allows the detection of medium effect sizes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05219760; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05219760.

International registered report identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/39026.

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
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Feasibility of AgileNudge+ Software to Facilitate Positive Behavioral Change: Mixed Methods Design. A Web-Based Intervention to Support a Growth Mindset and Well-Being in Unemployed Young Adults: Development Study. Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of Virtual Reality for Remote Group-Mediated Physical Activity in Older Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Associations Among Cardiometabolic Risk Factors, Sleep Duration, and Obstructive Sleep Apnea in a Southeastern US Rural Community: Cross-Sectional Analysis From the SLUMBRx-PONS Study. Barriers, Facilitators, and Requirements for a Telerehabilitation Aftercare Program for Patients After Occupational Injuries: Semistructured Interviews With Key Stakeholders.
×
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