OBJECTIVES: E-mental health (digital) interventions can help overcome existing barriers that stand in the way of people receiving help for an eating disorder (ED). Although e-mental health interventions for treating and preventing EDs have been met with enthusiasm, earlier reviews brought attention to poor quality of evidence, and offered solutions to enhance their evidence base. To assess developments in the field, we conducted an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of e-mental health interventions for treating and preventing EDs, paying attention to whether trial quality and outcomes have improved in recent trials. We also assessed whether user-centered design principles have been implemented in existing digital interventions. METHOD: Four databases were searched for RCTs of digital interventions for treating and preventing EDs. Thirty-six RCTs (28 prevention- and 8 treatment-focused) were included. RESULTS: Some evidence that study quality improved in recent prevention-focused trials was found. Few trials involved the end-user in the design or development stage of the intervention. Issues with intervention engagement were noted, and 1 in 4 participants dropped out from prevention- and treatment-focused trials. Digital interventions were more effective than control conditions in reducing established risk factors and symptoms in prevention- (g's = 0.19 to 0.43) and treatment-focused trials (g's = 0.29 to 0.69), respectively. Effect sizes have not increased in recent trials. Few trials compared a digital intervention with a face-to-face intervention. Whether digital interventions can prevent ED onset is unclear. CONCLUSION: Digital interventions are a promising approach to ED treatment and prevention, but improvements are still needed. Three key recommendations are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVES: E-mental health (digital) interventions can help overcome existing barriers that stand in the way of people receiving help for an eating disorder (ED). Although e-mental health interventions for treating and preventing EDs have been met with enthusiasm, earlier reviews brought attention to poor quality of evidence, and offered solutions to enhance their evidence base. To assess developments in the field, we conducted an updated meta-analysis on the efficacy of e-mental health interventions for treating and preventing EDs, paying attention to whether trial quality and outcomes have improved in recent trials. We also assessed whether user-centered design principles have been implemented in existing digital interventions. METHOD: Four databases were searched for RCTs of digital interventions for treating and preventing EDs. Thirty-six RCTs (28 prevention- and 8 treatment-focused) were included. RESULTS: Some evidence that study quality improved in recent prevention-focused trials was found. Few trials involved the end-user in the design or development stage of the intervention. Issues with intervention engagement were noted, and 1 in 4 participants dropped out from prevention- and treatment-focused trials. Digital interventions were more effective than control conditions in reducing established risk factors and symptoms in prevention- (g's = 0.19 to 0.43) and treatment-focused trials (g's = 0.29 to 0.69), respectively. Effect sizes have not increased in recent trials. Few trials compared a digital intervention with a face-to-face intervention. Whether digital interventions can prevent ED onset is unclear. CONCLUSION: Digital interventions are a promising approach to ED treatment and prevention, but improvements are still needed. Three key recommendations are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Vanessa Bertuzzi; Michelle Semonella; Gianluca Castelnuovo; Gerhard Andersson; Giada Pietrabissa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: John Torous; Sandra Bucci; Imogen H Bell; Lars V Kessing; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Pauline Whelan; Andre F Carvalho; Matcheri Keshavan; Jake Linardon; Joseph Firth Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Barbara Nacke; Michael Zeiler; Stefanie Kuso; Lisa M Klesges; Corinna Jacobi; Karin Waldherr Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 3.367