Dataset Information

Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is a disconnect between the ability to swiftly develop e-therapies for the treatment of depression, anxiety, and stress, and the scrupulous evaluation of their clinical utility. This creates a risk that the e-therapies routinely provided within publicly funded psychological health care have evaded appropriate rigorous evaluation in their development. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to conduct a meta-analytic review of the gold standard evidence of the acceptability and clinical effectiveness of e-therapies recommended for use in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. METHODS:Systematic searches identified appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Depression, anxiety, and stress outcomes at the end of treatment and follow-up were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was used to assess the quality of each meta-analytic comparison. Moderators of treatment effect were examined using subgroup and meta-regression analysis. Dropout rates for e-therapies (as a proxy for acceptability) were compared against controls. RESULTS:A total of 24 studies evaluating 7 of 48 NHS-recommended e-therapies were qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized. Depression, anxiety, and stress outcomes for e-therapies were superior to controls (depression: standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, N=7075; anxiety and stress: SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.63, n=4863), and these small effects were maintained at follow-up. Average dropout rates for e-therapies (31%, SD 17.35) were significantly higher than those of controls (17%, SD 13.31). Limited moderators of the treatment effect were found. CONCLUSIONS:Many NHS-recommended e-therapies have not been through an RCT-style evaluation. The e-therapies that have been appropriately evaluated generate small but significant, durable, beneficial treatment effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration CRD42019130184; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=130184.

SUBMITTER: Simmonds-Buckley M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7657731 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis.

Simmonds-Buckley Melanie M Bennion Matthew Russell MR Kellett Stephen S Millings Abigail A Hardy Gillian E GE Moore Roger K RK

Journal of medical Internet research 20201028 10

<h4>Background</h4>There is a disconnect between the ability to swiftly develop e-therapies for the treatment of depression, anxiety, and stress, and the scrupulous evaluation of their clinical utility. This creates a risk that the e-therapies routinely provided within publicly funded psychological health care have evaded appropriate rigorous evaluation in their development.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aims to conduct a meta-analytic review of the gold standard evidence of the acceptability and ...[more]

PMID: 33112238

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCognitive behavior therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of acute depression. However, whether CBT can be effectively delivered in individual, group, telephone-administered, guided self-help, and unguided self-help formats remains unclear.ObjectiveTo examine the most effective delivery format for CBT via a network meta-analysis.Data sourcesA database updated yearly from PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Literature search dates encompassed January 1, 1966, to January 1, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of CBT for adult depression. The 5 treatment formats were compared with each other and the control conditions (waiting list, care as usual, and pill placebo).Data extraction and synthesisPRISMA guidelines were used when extracting data and assessing data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresSeverity of depression and acceptability of the treatment formats.ResultsA total of 155 trials with 15 191 participants compared 5 CBT delivery formats with 2 control conditions. In half of the studies (78 [50.3%]), patients met the criteria for a depressive disorder; in the other half (77 [49.7%]), participants scored above the cutoff point on a self-report measure. The effectiveness of individual, group, telephone, and guided self-help CBT did not differ statistically significantly from each other. These formats were statistically significantly more effective than the waiting list (standardized mean differences [SMDs], 0.87-1.02) and care as usual (SMDs, 0.47-0.72) control conditions as well as the unguided self-help CBT (SMDs, 0.34-0.59). In terms of acceptability (dropout for any reason), individual (relative risk [RR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.89) and group (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.80) CBT were significantly better than guided self-help. Guided self-help was also less acceptable than being on a waiting list (RR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and care as usual (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90). Sensitivity analyses supported the overall findings.Conclusions and relevanceFor acute symptoms of depression, group, telephone, and guided self-help treatment formats appeared to be effective interventions, which may be considered as alternatives to individual CBT; although there were few indications of significant differences in efficacy between treatments with human support, guided self-help CBT may be less acceptable for patients than individual, group, or telephone formats.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many university campuses have limited mental health services that cannot cope with the high demand. One alternative is to use internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) as a way of tackling barriers such as lack of availability and scheduling issues. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and satisfaction of a supported iCBT intervention offering 3 programs on depression, anxiety, and stress to university students. The design was an open or nonrandomized feasibility trial. METHODS:Participants were recruited from 3 counseling centers at a large midwestern University in the United States. Those agreeing to take part chose 1 of 3 iCBT programs-Space from Depression, Space from Anxiety, or Space from Stress -all comprised 8 modules of media-rich interactive content. Participants were supported throughout the trial by a trained professional. The Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7) questionnaire, and stress subscale of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) were completed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 3-month follow-up. A Satisfaction With Treatment (SAT) questionnaire was completed at 8 weeks, and qualitative interviews were completed by a subsample of participants at 3 months. RESULTS:A total of 102 participants were recruited, with 52 choosing Space from Anxiety, 31 choosing Space from Depression, and 19 choosing Space from Stress. Mixed-effects models showed a significant decrease in symptoms of depression (F4=6.36, P<.001), anxiety (F4=7.97, P<.001), and stress (F4=8.50, P<.001) over time across all 3 programs. The largest decreases in PHQ-9 scores at 8 weeks were among participants who chose the Space from Depression program (d=0.84); at 3 months, the largest decreases in PHQ-9 scores were among those who chose the Space from Stress program (d=0.74). The largest decreases in GAD-7 scores were among those who chose the Space from Anxiety program (d=0.74 at 8 weeks and d=0.94 at 3 months). The largest decrease in DASS-21 stress subscale scores was among those who chose the Space from Stress program (d=0.49 at 8 weeks and d=1.16 at 3 months). The mean time spent using the platform per session was 27.4 min (SD 33.8), and participants completed 53% (SD 37.6) of the total program content on average. Most (37/53, 69%) participants found the programs helpful or very helpful and liked the convenience and flexibility of the intervention. Qualitative interviews (n=14) indicated the intervention met students' expectations, and they saw it as a valuable complement to face-to-face treatment. CONCLUSIONS:The iCBT programs tested in our study appear to be feasible, acceptable, and effective in a university environment. Participants described the benefits of having a flexible, supported Web-based intervention available on campus. Larger trials should be conducted to further test the effectiveness of supported Web-based interventions that give students a choice of program depending on their symptom profile.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Project description:Background:Depression and anxiety are the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. Bibliotherapy is a treatment using written materials for mental health problems. Its main advantages are ease of use, low cost, low staffing demands, and greater privacy. Yet few meta-analyses have focused on the effect of bibliotherapy on depression and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Methods:We included randomized controlled trials comparing bibliotherapy with control conditions for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents (aged ?18 years). Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to January 2017. Efficacy was defined as mean change scores in depression and anxiety symptoms. Acceptability was defined as the proportion of participants who discontinued the treatment. Random effects model was used. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Results:Eight studies with 979 participants were selected. At posttreatment, bibliotherapy was significantly more effective than the control conditions in reducing the symptoms of depression or anxiety (standardized mean difference, -0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.89 to -0.15). Bibliotherapy did not have statistically significantly more all-cause discontinuations than controls (risk ratios, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.95). We also performed subgroup analyses for efficacy outcomes in different categories (types of disorder, mean age, control conditions, and parental involvement) of studies and found that bibliotherapy has been more effective in depressive adolescents. Limitations:Limited studies were eligible in this review and hence there was potential publication bias. Conclusion:According to the findings in this review, bibliotherapy may be more beneficial in treating depression in adolescents, but shows less robust effects for anxiety in children. Further well-defined clinical studies should be performed to confirm these outcomes.

Dataset Information

Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets