Matthias Domhardt1, Josefine Letsch2, Jonas Kybelka3, Josephine Koenigbauer3, Philipp Doebler4, Harald Baumeister3. 1. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee-47, 89081 Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: matthias.domhardt@uni-ulm.de. 2. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Ulm, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee-47, 89081 Ulm, Germany. 4. Statistical Methods in the Social Sciences, Department of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no meta-analysis that specifically evaluates the effectiveness of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (PD/A) so far. The current meta-analysis aims to fill this gap (PROSPERO CRD 42016034016). METHODS: Systematic literature searches in six databases for randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating IMIs in adults, who met diagnostic criteria for PD/A. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted when appropriate. Primary outcomes were PD and A symptom severity. In addition, adherence, response, remission, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptom severity were examined. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials (1015 patients), with 21 comparisons (9 IMI vs. waitlist; 7 IMI vs. IMI; 5 IMI vs. active treatment condition), were included. IMIs revealed beneficial effects on panic (Hedges' g range -2.61 to -0.25) and agoraphobia symptom severity when compared to waitlist (pooled g = -1.15, [95%-CI = -1.56; -0.74]). Studies comparing IMIs to active controls (i.e., face-to-face CBT and applied relaxation) did not find significant differences for reductions in panic (g = -0.02, [95%-CI = -0.25; 0.21]) and agoraphobia symptom severity (g = -0.10, [95%-CI = -0.39; 0.19]). Furthermore, IMIs were superior to waitlist controls regarding anxiety and depression symptom severity and quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Tests for publication bias were not feasible due to the limited number of trials per comparison, and the risk of bias assessment indicated some methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this meta-analytic review provide support for the effectiveness of IMIs in patients with verified PD/A. However, before IMIs can be included in treatment guidelines for PD/A, future high quality research is needed that substantiates and extends the evidence base, especially in regard to intervention safety.
BACKGROUND: There is no meta-analysis that specifically evaluates the effectiveness of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (PD/A) so far. The current meta-analysis aims to fill this gap (PROSPERO CRD 42016034016). METHODS: Systematic literature searches in six databases for randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating IMIs in adults, who met diagnostic criteria for PD/A. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted when appropriate. Primary outcomes were PD and A symptom severity. In addition, adherence, response, remission, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptom severity were examined. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials (1015 patients), with 21 comparisons (9 IMI vs. waitlist; 7 IMI vs. IMI; 5 IMI vs. active treatment condition), were included. IMIs revealed beneficial effects on panic (Hedges' g range -2.61 to -0.25) and agoraphobia symptom severity when compared to waitlist (pooled g = -1.15, [95%-CI = -1.56; -0.74]). Studies comparing IMIs to active controls (i.e., face-to-face CBT and applied relaxation) did not find significant differences for reductions in panic (g = -0.02, [95%-CI = -0.25; 0.21]) and agoraphobia symptom severity (g = -0.10, [95%-CI = -0.39; 0.19]). Furthermore, IMIs were superior to waitlist controls regarding anxiety and depression symptom severity and quality of life. LIMITATIONS: Tests for publication bias were not feasible due to the limited number of trials per comparison, and the risk of bias assessment indicated some methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this meta-analytic review provide support for the effectiveness of IMIs in patients with verified PD/A. However, before IMIs can be included in treatment guidelines for PD/A, future high quality research is needed that substantiates and extends the evidence base, especially in regard to intervention safety.
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: Lina Braun; Ingrid Titzler; Yannik Terhorst; Johanna Freund; Janika Thielecke; David Daniel Ebert; Harald Baumeister Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2021-09-14
Authors: Matthias Domhardt; Simon Grund; Axel Mayer; Rebekka Büscher; David D Ebert; Lasse B Sander; Eirini Karyotaki; Pim Cuijpers; Harald Baumeister Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 5.435