Brendan Loo Gee1, Kathleen M Griffiths2, Amelia Gulliver2. 1. National Institute for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University National Institute for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University brendan.loogee@anu.edu.au. 2. National Institute for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Mobile technologies may be suitable for delivering Ecological Momentary Interventions (EMI) to treat anxiety in real-time. This review aims to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of EMI for treating anxiety conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases and the reference lists of previous studies were searched. A total of 1949 abstracts were double screened for inclusion. Sufficient studies were available to undertake a quantitative meta-analysis on EMIs on generalized anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: The 15 randomized trials and randomized controlled trials examined anxiety (n = 7), stress (n = 3), anxiety and stress (n = 2), panic disorder (n = 2), and social phobia (n = 1). Eight EMIs comprised self-monitoring integrated with therapy modules, seven comprised multimedia content, and three comprised self-monitoring only. The quality of studies presented high risk of biases. Meta-analysis (n = 7) demonstrated that EMIs reduced generalized anxiety compared to control and/or comparison groups (Effect Size (ES) = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.12-0.53). Most EMIs targeting stress were reported effective relative to control as were the two EMIs targeting panic disorders. The EMI targeting social phobia was not effective. DISCUSSION: EMIs have potential in treating both anxiety and stress. However, few high-quality trials have been conducted for specific anxiety disorders. Further trials are needed to assess the value of EMI technologies for anxiety in enhancing existing treatments. CONCLUSION: This study found a small significant effect of EMI studies on reducing generalized anxiety. Studies on stress demonstrated EMI was effective compared to control, with the small number of studies on panic and social phobia demonstrating mixed results.
OBJECTIVES: Mobile technologies may be suitable for delivering Ecological Momentary Interventions (EMI) to treat anxiety in real-time. This review aims to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of EMI for treating anxiety conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases and the reference lists of previous studies were searched. A total of 1949 abstracts were double screened for inclusion. Sufficient studies were available to undertake a quantitative meta-analysis on EMIs on generalized anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: The 15 randomized trials and randomized controlled trials examined anxiety (n = 7), stress (n = 3), anxiety and stress (n = 2), panic disorder (n = 2), and social phobia (n = 1). Eight EMIs comprised self-monitoring integrated with therapy modules, seven comprised multimedia content, and three comprised self-monitoring only. The quality of studies presented high risk of biases. Meta-analysis (n = 7) demonstrated that EMIs reduced generalized anxiety compared to control and/or comparison groups (Effect Size (ES) = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.12-0.53). Most EMIs targeting stress were reported effective relative to control as were the two EMIs targeting panic disorders. The EMI targeting social phobia was not effective. DISCUSSION: EMIs have potential in treating both anxiety and stress. However, few high-quality trials have been conducted for specific anxiety disorders. Further trials are needed to assess the value of EMI technologies for anxiety in enhancing existing treatments. CONCLUSION: This study found a small significant effect of EMI studies on reducing generalized anxiety. Studies on stress demonstrated EMI was effective compared to control, with the small number of studies on panic and social phobia demonstrating mixed results.
Authors: Patricia Gual-Montolio; Irene Jaén; Verónica Martínez-Borba; Diana Castilla; Carlos Suso-Ribera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Peter W Tuerk; Cindy M Schaeffer; Joseph F McGuire; Margo Adams Larsen; Nicole Capobianco; John Piacentini Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Diane Santa Maria; Nikhil Padhye; Michael Businelle; Yijiong Yang; Jennifer Jones; Alexis Sims; Marguerita Lightfoot Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Imogen H Bell; Sarah F Fielding-Smith; Mark Hayward; Susan L Rossell; Michelle H Lim; John Farhall; Neil Thomas Journal: Trials Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.279