Cargando…

Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, internet-delivered psychotherapeutic interventions (IPI) move increasingly into the focus of attention. METHOD: We reviewed 39 randomized controlled studies of IPIs with 97 study arms (n = 4122 patients) for anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, gen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bandelow, Borwin, Wedekind, Dirk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9241282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35768807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04002-1
_version_ 1784737769705177088
author Bandelow, Borwin
Wedekind, Dirk
author_facet Bandelow, Borwin
Wedekind, Dirk
author_sort Bandelow, Borwin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, internet-delivered psychotherapeutic interventions (IPI) move increasingly into the focus of attention. METHOD: We reviewed 39 randomized controlled studies of IPIs with 97 study arms (n = 4122 patients) for anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder) and performed a meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted with cognitive behavioural approaches (iCBT). Results were compared with a previous meta-analysis examining medications and face-to-face (F2F) psychotherapy. RESULTS: In direct comparisons, IPIs were as effective as F2F-CBT and superior to waitlist controls. Programs with more intensive therapist contact yielded higher effect sizes (ES). We compared the obtained ES with a previous comprehensive meta-analysis of 234 studies. In this comparison, iCBT was less effective than individual F2F-CBT and medications, not different from pill placebos, and more effective than psychological placebo and waitlist (p > .0001 for all comparisons). ES of IPIs may be overestimated. Treatments were only compared to waitlist, which is not a sufficient control condition. 97% of the studies were not blinded with regard to the main outcome measure. 32% of the participants received antianxiety drugs during the trials. In 89%, participants were recruited by advertisements rather than from clinical settings, and 63% of the participants had an academic background (students or university employees) which might affect the generalizability of the findings. Remote diagnoses were often made by students without completed training in psychotherapy. In only 15% of the studies, diagnoses were made in personal contact with a psychiatrist or psychologist. In 44% of the studies, the ‘therapists’ maintaining remote contact with the participants were mostly students without completed psychotherapy education. CONCLUSIONS: IPIs may be a useful tool when face-to-face psychotherapy is not easily available, or as an add-on to standard psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacological treatments but should perhaps not be used as monotherapy. We have suggested standards for future research and the practical use of IPIs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-04002-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9241282
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92412822022-06-30 Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation Bandelow, Borwin Wedekind, Dirk BMC Psychiatry Research BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, internet-delivered psychotherapeutic interventions (IPI) move increasingly into the focus of attention. METHOD: We reviewed 39 randomized controlled studies of IPIs with 97 study arms (n = 4122 patients) for anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder) and performed a meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted with cognitive behavioural approaches (iCBT). Results were compared with a previous meta-analysis examining medications and face-to-face (F2F) psychotherapy. RESULTS: In direct comparisons, IPIs were as effective as F2F-CBT and superior to waitlist controls. Programs with more intensive therapist contact yielded higher effect sizes (ES). We compared the obtained ES with a previous comprehensive meta-analysis of 234 studies. In this comparison, iCBT was less effective than individual F2F-CBT and medications, not different from pill placebos, and more effective than psychological placebo and waitlist (p > .0001 for all comparisons). ES of IPIs may be overestimated. Treatments were only compared to waitlist, which is not a sufficient control condition. 97% of the studies were not blinded with regard to the main outcome measure. 32% of the participants received antianxiety drugs during the trials. In 89%, participants were recruited by advertisements rather than from clinical settings, and 63% of the participants had an academic background (students or university employees) which might affect the generalizability of the findings. Remote diagnoses were often made by students without completed training in psychotherapy. In only 15% of the studies, diagnoses were made in personal contact with a psychiatrist or psychologist. In 44% of the studies, the ‘therapists’ maintaining remote contact with the participants were mostly students without completed psychotherapy education. CONCLUSIONS: IPIs may be a useful tool when face-to-face psychotherapy is not easily available, or as an add-on to standard psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacological treatments but should perhaps not be used as monotherapy. We have suggested standards for future research and the practical use of IPIs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-04002-1. BioMed Central 2022-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9241282/ /pubmed/35768807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04002-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Bandelow, Borwin
Wedekind, Dirk
Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
title Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
title_full Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
title_fullStr Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
title_short Internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
title_sort internet psychotherapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders – a critical evaluation
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9241282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35768807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04002-1
work_keys_str_mv AT bandelowborwin internetpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforanxietydisordersacriticalevaluation
AT wedekinddirk internetpsychotherapeuticinterventionsforanxietydisordersacriticalevaluation