Dimitra Anastasiadou1,2, Frans Folkvord1,2,3,4, Francisco Lupiañez-Villanueva1,2. 1. Department of Information and Communication Sciences, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Open Evidence Research, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Communication Science Department, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the existing evidence of mobile health (mHealth) tools for the treatment of eating disorders (ED). METHOD: Electronic databases (Pubmed, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS) were searched, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. Selected studies were divided into three categories according to the intended purpose of the mHealth tools used: (a) sole means of support, (b) complementary to standard face-to-face treatment, and (c) for relapse prevention. Additionally, studies were assessed on efficacy, qualitative information, and methodological quality. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. Most studies using mHealth as a sole means of intervention or adjunct to traditional therapy showed no effects, although an improvement at postassessment was present in vodcast, smartphone application, and text-messaging interventions. Between group effects were only found for a text-messaging intervention for relapse prevention. Qualitative analyses showed that most mHealth interventions were considered as acceptable, supporting, and motivating by patients and therapists, although different important problems were observed in individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: Limited effects were found for mHealth interventions to reduce ED-related symptoms. A common evaluation framework for ED mHealth interventions should be proposed to assess the validity of interventions before implementing them on a larger scale in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the existing evidence of mobile health (mHealth) tools for the treatment of eating disorders (ED). METHOD: Electronic databases (Pubmed, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS) were searched, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. Selected studies were divided into three categories according to the intended purpose of the mHealth tools used: (a) sole means of support, (b) complementary to standard face-to-face treatment, and (c) for relapse prevention. Additionally, studies were assessed on efficacy, qualitative information, and methodological quality. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. Most studies using mHealth as a sole means of intervention or adjunct to traditional therapy showed no effects, although an improvement at postassessment was present in vodcast, smartphone application, and text-messaging interventions. Between group effects were only found for a text-messaging intervention for relapse prevention. Qualitative analyses showed that most mHealth interventions were considered as acceptable, supporting, and motivating by patients and therapists, although different important problems were observed in individual studies. CONCLUSIONS: Limited effects were found for mHealth interventions to reduce ED-related symptoms. A common evaluation framework for ED mHealth interventions should be proposed to assess the validity of interventions before implementing them on a larger scale in clinical practice.
Authors: Fernando Fernández-Aranda; Miquel Casas; Laurence Claes; Danielle Clark Bryan; Angela Favaro; Roser Granero; Carlota Gudiol; Susana Jiménez-Murcia; Andreas Karwautz; Daniel Le Grange; Jose M Menchón; Kate Tchanturia; Janet Treasure Journal: Eur Eat Disord Rev Date: 2020-05
Authors: Frans Folkvord; Freek Snelting; Doeschka Anschutz; Tilo Hartmann; Alexandra Theben; Laura Gunderson; Ivar Vermeulen; Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: See Heng Yim; Emma Bailey; Gemma Gordon; Nina Grant; Peter Musiat; Ulrike Schmidt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 5.428