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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |