BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for anxiety is established, little is known about the intervention components responsible for therapeutic change. We conducted the first comprehensive meta-analytic review of intervention components of IMIs for adult anxiety disorders. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMIs for anxiety disorders to active online control groups, or IMIs to dismantled variations of the same intervention (± specific components) were identified by a systematic literature search in six databases. Outcomes were validated observer-rated or self-report measures for anxiety symptom severity and treatment adherence (number of completed modules and completer rate). This meta-analytic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017068268). RESULTS: We extracted the data of 34 RCTs (with 3,724 participants) and rated the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on 19 comparisons of intervention components (i.a., different psychotherapeutic orientations, disorder-specific vs. transdiagnostic approaches, guidance factors). IMIs had a large effect when compared to active online controls on symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] of -1.67 [95% CI: -2.93, -0.42]; P = 0.009). Thereby, guided IMIs were superior to unguided interventions on symptom severity (SMD of -0.39 [95% CI: -0.59, -0.18]; P = 0.0002) and adherence (SMD of 0.38 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.66]; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of this meta-analysis lend further support to the efficacy of IMIs for anxiety, pointing to their potential to augment service supplies. Still, future research is needed to determine which ingredients are essential, as this meta-analytic review found no evidence for incremental effects of several single intervention components apart from guidance.
BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for anxiety is established, little is known about the intervention components responsible for therapeutic change. We conducted the first comprehensive meta-analytic review of intervention components of IMIs for adult anxiety disorders. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMIs for anxiety disorders to active online control groups, or IMIs to dismantled variations of the same intervention (± specific components) were identified by a systematic literature search in six databases. Outcomes were validated observer-rated or self-report measures for anxiety symptom severity and treatment adherence (number of completed modules and completer rate). This meta-analytic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017068268). RESULTS: We extracted the data of 34 RCTs (with 3,724 participants) and rated the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on 19 comparisons of intervention components (i.a., different psychotherapeutic orientations, disorder-specific vs. transdiagnostic approaches, guidance factors). IMIs had a large effect when compared to active online controls on symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] of -1.67 [95% CI: -2.93, -0.42]; P = 0.009). Thereby, guided IMIs were superior to unguided interventions on symptom severity (SMD of -0.39 [95% CI: -0.59, -0.18]; P = 0.0002) and adherence (SMD of 0.38 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.66]; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of this meta-analysis lend further support to the efficacy of IMIs for anxiety, pointing to their potential to augment service supplies. Still, future research is needed to determine which ingredients are essential, as this meta-analytic review found no evidence for incremental effects of several single intervention components apart from guidance.
Authors: Alexandra Werntz; Alexandra L Silverman; Henry Behan; Suraj K Patel; Miranda Beltzer; Mehdi O Boukhechba; Laura Barnes; Bethany A Teachman Journal: Behav Ther Date: 2021-12-11
Authors: Rebecca L Emery; Sydney T Johnson; Melissa Simone; Katie A Loth; Jerica M Berge; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2021-03-06 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Harald Baumeister; Natalie Bauereiss; Anna-Carlotta Zarski; Lina Braun; Claudia Buntrock; Christian Hoherz; Abdul Rahman Idrees; Robin Kraft; Pauline Meyer; Tran Bao Dat Nguyen; Rüdiger Pryss; Manfred Reichert; Theresa Sextl; Maria Steinhoff; Lena Stenzel; Lena Steubl; Yannik Terhorst; Ingrid Titzler; David Daniel Ebert Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Calista Leung; Julia Pei; Kristen Hudec; Farhud Shams; Richard Munthali; Daniel Vigo Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Eirini Karyotaki; Anke M Klein; Heleen Riper; Leonore de Wit; Lisa Krijnen; Eline Bol; Felix Bolinski; Simone Burger; David D Ebert; Randy P Auerbach; Ronald C Kessler; Ronny Bruffaerts; Neeltje Batelaan; Claudia M van der Heijde; Peter Vonk; Annet Kleiboer; Reinout W Wiers; Pim Cuijpers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 2.692