A meta-analysis of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for military and veteran populations.
Cognitive-behavioral therapy
Military
Veterans
iCBT
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 04 2023
03 04 2023
Historique:
received:
20
04
2022
accepted:
09
03
2023
medline:
5
4
2023
entrez:
4
4
2023
pubmed:
5
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Military and veteran populations are unique in their trauma exposures, rates of mental illness and comorbidities, and response to treatments. While reviews have suggested that internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (iCBT) can be useful for treating mental health conditions, the extent to which they may be appropriate for military and veteran populations remain unclear. The goals of the current meta-analysis are to: (1) substantiate the effects of iCBT for military and veteran populations, (2) evaluate its effectiveness compared to control conditions, and (3) examine potential factors that may influence their effectiveness. This review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting and Cochrane review guidelines. The literature search was conducted using PsycInfo, Medline, Embase, and Proquest Dissertation & Theses on June 4, 2021 with no date restriction. Inclusion criteria included studies that: (1) were restricted to adult military or veteran populations, (2) incorporated iCBT as the primary treatment, and (3) evaluated mental health outcomes. Exclusion criteria included: (1) literature reviews, (2) qualitative studies, (3) study protocols, (4) studies that did not include a clinical/analogue population, and (5) studies with no measure of change on outcome variables. Two independent screeners reviewed studies for eligibility. Data was pooled and analyzed using random-effects and mixed-effects models. Study data information were extracted as the main outcomes, including study condition, sample size, and pre- and post-treatment means, standard deviations for all assessed outcomes, and target outcome. Predictor information were also extracted, and included demographics information, the types of outcomes measured, concurrent treatment, dropout rate, format, length, and delivery of intervention. A total of 20 studies and 91 samples of data were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size showed a small but meaningful effect for iCBT, g = 0.54, SE = 0.04, 95% CI (0.45, 0.62), Z = 12.32, p < .001. These effects were heterogenous across samples, (I Findings from the meta-analysis lend support for the use of iCBT with military and veteran populations. Conditions under which iCBT may be optimized are discussed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Military and veteran populations are unique in their trauma exposures, rates of mental illness and comorbidities, and response to treatments. While reviews have suggested that internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (iCBT) can be useful for treating mental health conditions, the extent to which they may be appropriate for military and veteran populations remain unclear. The goals of the current meta-analysis are to: (1) substantiate the effects of iCBT for military and veteran populations, (2) evaluate its effectiveness compared to control conditions, and (3) examine potential factors that may influence their effectiveness.
METHODS
This review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting and Cochrane review guidelines. The literature search was conducted using PsycInfo, Medline, Embase, and Proquest Dissertation & Theses on June 4, 2021 with no date restriction. Inclusion criteria included studies that: (1) were restricted to adult military or veteran populations, (2) incorporated iCBT as the primary treatment, and (3) evaluated mental health outcomes. Exclusion criteria included: (1) literature reviews, (2) qualitative studies, (3) study protocols, (4) studies that did not include a clinical/analogue population, and (5) studies with no measure of change on outcome variables. Two independent screeners reviewed studies for eligibility. Data was pooled and analyzed using random-effects and mixed-effects models. Study data information were extracted as the main outcomes, including study condition, sample size, and pre- and post-treatment means, standard deviations for all assessed outcomes, and target outcome. Predictor information were also extracted, and included demographics information, the types of outcomes measured, concurrent treatment, dropout rate, format, length, and delivery of intervention.
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies and 91 samples of data were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size showed a small but meaningful effect for iCBT, g = 0.54, SE = 0.04, 95% CI (0.45, 0.62), Z = 12.32, p < .001. These effects were heterogenous across samples, (I
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from the meta-analysis lend support for the use of iCBT with military and veteran populations. Conditions under which iCBT may be optimized are discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37013501
doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-04668-1
pii: 10.1186/s12888-023-04668-1
pmc: PMC10068715
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
223Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Can J Psychiatry. 2013 Jul;58(7):376-85
pubmed: 23870719
World Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;13(3):288-95
pubmed: 25273302
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Oct 30;69(43):1595-1599
pubmed: 33119561
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Res Synth Methods. 2019 Jun;10(2):180-194
pubmed: 30616301
J Affect Disord. 2015 Apr 1;175:152-67
pubmed: 25618002
J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2017 May/Jun;32(3):E1-E15
pubmed: 27603763
Fam Med Community Health. 2020 Aug;8(3):
pubmed: 32816942
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019 Dec;140(6):508-521
pubmed: 31359407
Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Nov;164(11):1676-83
pubmed: 17974932
Sleep. 2017 Jun 1;40(6):
pubmed: 28472528
Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 24;12:711652
pubmed: 34899460
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):414
pubmed: 29284431
Depress Anxiety. 2016 Sep;33(9):783-91
pubmed: 27322710
Acta Inform Med. 2017 Dec;25(4):240-246
pubmed: 29284913
J Anxiety Disord. 2019 Oct;67:102133
pubmed: 31472332
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 30;6(11):e010707
pubmed: 27903557
Womens Health Issues. 2019 May - Jun;29(3):267-273
pubmed: 31060890
Cureus. 2017 Aug 29;9(8):e1626
pubmed: 29098136
Mil Med. 2014 Sep;179(9):942-9
pubmed: 25181709
JAMA Psychiatry. 2021 Apr 1;78(4):361-371
pubmed: 33471111
Can J Psychiatry. 2019 Jul;64(7):501-510
pubmed: 30599762
J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Dec 1;44(4):e588-e592
pubmed: 35352103
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2022 Jan 24;13(1):2012374
pubmed: 35087643
Psychopharmacol Bull. 1993;29(2):321-6
pubmed: 8290681
Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ). 2017 Oct;15(4):429-431
pubmed: 31975874
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019 Feb 19;19(6):1-199
pubmed: 30873251
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 31;22(8):e18100
pubmed: 32865497
Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Dec;82:101919
pubmed: 33045528
Environ Int. 2020 May;138:105623
pubmed: 32203803
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016 Mar;84(3):191-9
pubmed: 26795937
Psychol Trauma. 2020 Mar;12(3):272-280
pubmed: 31282719
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2016 Jan-Feb;38:94-8
pubmed: 26589765