Are Internet- and mobile-based interventions effective in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Agoraphobia
Anxiety disorder
Panic disorder
Psychotherapy
eHealth
mHealth
Journal
Journal of affective disorders
ISSN: 1573-2517
Titre abrégé: J Affect Disord
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7906073
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2020
01 11 2020
Historique:
received:
13
03
2020
revised:
20
05
2020
accepted:
16
06
2020
pubmed:
23
7
2020
medline:
16
2
2021
entrez:
23
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is no meta-analysis that specifically evaluates the effectiveness of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (PD/A) so far. The current meta-analysis aims to fill this gap (PROSPERO CRD 42016034016). Systematic literature searches in six databases for randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating IMIs in adults, who met diagnostic criteria for PD/A. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted when appropriate. Primary outcomes were PD and A symptom severity. In addition, adherence, response, remission, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptom severity were examined. A total of 16 trials (1015 patients), with 21 comparisons (9 IMI vs. waitlist; 7 IMI vs. IMI; 5 IMI vs. active treatment condition), were included. IMIs revealed beneficial effects on panic (Hedges' g range -2.61 to -0.25) and agoraphobia symptom severity when compared to waitlist (pooled g = -1.15, [95%-CI = -1.56; -0.74]). Studies comparing IMIs to active controls (i.e., face-to-face CBT and applied relaxation) did not find significant differences for reductions in panic (g = -0.02, [95%-CI = -0.25; 0.21]) and agoraphobia symptom severity (g = -0.10, [95%-CI = -0.39; 0.19]). Furthermore, IMIs were superior to waitlist controls regarding anxiety and depression symptom severity and quality of life. Tests for publication bias were not feasible due to the limited number of trials per comparison, and the risk of bias assessment indicated some methodological shortcomings. Findings from this meta-analytic review provide support for the effectiveness of IMIs in patients with verified PD/A. However, before IMIs can be included in treatment guidelines for PD/A, future high quality research is needed that substantiates and extends the evidence base, especially in regard to intervention safety.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is no meta-analysis that specifically evaluates the effectiveness of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (PD/A) so far. The current meta-analysis aims to fill this gap (PROSPERO CRD 42016034016).
METHODS
Systematic literature searches in six databases for randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating IMIs in adults, who met diagnostic criteria for PD/A. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted when appropriate. Primary outcomes were PD and A symptom severity. In addition, adherence, response, remission, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptom severity were examined.
RESULTS
A total of 16 trials (1015 patients), with 21 comparisons (9 IMI vs. waitlist; 7 IMI vs. IMI; 5 IMI vs. active treatment condition), were included. IMIs revealed beneficial effects on panic (Hedges' g range -2.61 to -0.25) and agoraphobia symptom severity when compared to waitlist (pooled g = -1.15, [95%-CI = -1.56; -0.74]). Studies comparing IMIs to active controls (i.e., face-to-face CBT and applied relaxation) did not find significant differences for reductions in panic (g = -0.02, [95%-CI = -0.25; 0.21]) and agoraphobia symptom severity (g = -0.10, [95%-CI = -0.39; 0.19]). Furthermore, IMIs were superior to waitlist controls regarding anxiety and depression symptom severity and quality of life.
LIMITATIONS
Tests for publication bias were not feasible due to the limited number of trials per comparison, and the risk of bias assessment indicated some methodological shortcomings.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this meta-analytic review provide support for the effectiveness of IMIs in patients with verified PD/A. However, before IMIs can be included in treatment guidelines for PD/A, future high quality research is needed that substantiates and extends the evidence base, especially in regard to intervention safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32697696
pii: S0165-0327(20)32456-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.059
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
169-182Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.