Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie, Bennion, Matthew Russell, Kellett, Stephen, Millings, Abigail, Hardy, Gillian E, Moore, Roger K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7657731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33112238
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17049
_version_ 1783608557713752064
author Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie
Bennion, Matthew Russell
Kellett, Stephen
Millings, Abigail
Hardy, Gillian E
Moore, Roger K
author_facet Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie
Bennion, Matthew Russell
Kellett, Stephen
Millings, Abigail
Hardy, Gillian E
Moore, Roger K
author_sort Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie
collection PubMed
description 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
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7657731
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76577312020-11-13 Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie Bennion, Matthew Russell Kellett, Stephen Millings, Abigail Hardy, Gillian E Moore, Roger K J Med Internet Res Review 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 JMIR Publications 2020-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7657731/ /pubmed/33112238 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17049 Text en ©Melanie Simmonds-Buckley, Matthew Russell Bennion, Stephen Kellett, Abigail Millings, Gillian E Hardy, Roger K Moore. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 28.10.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Review
Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie
Bennion, Matthew Russell
Kellett, Stephen
Millings, Abigail
Hardy, Gillian E
Moore, Roger K
Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis
title Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis
title_full Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis
title_short Acceptability and Effectiveness of NHS-Recommended e-Therapies for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress: Meta-Analysis
title_sort acceptability and effectiveness of nhs-recommended e-therapies for depression, anxiety, and stress: meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7657731/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33112238
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17049
work_keys_str_mv AT simmondsbuckleymelanie acceptabilityandeffectivenessofnhsrecommendedetherapiesfordepressionanxietyandstressmetaanalysis
AT bennionmatthewrussell acceptabilityandeffectivenessofnhsrecommendedetherapiesfordepressionanxietyandstressmetaanalysis
AT kellettstephen acceptabilityandeffectivenessofnhsrecommendedetherapiesfordepressionanxietyandstressmetaanalysis
AT millingsabigail acceptabilityandeffectivenessofnhsrecommendedetherapiesfordepressionanxietyandstressmetaanalysis
AT hardygilliane acceptabilityandeffectivenessofnhsrecommendedetherapiesfordepressionanxietyandstressmetaanalysis
AT moorerogerk acceptabilityandeffectivenessofnhsrecommendedetherapiesfordepressionanxietyandstressmetaanalysis