有效的互联网健康干预措施:荟萃分析的系统评价与网站可用性评估
Internet-Delivered Health Interventions That Work: Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses and Evaluation of Website Availability.
作者信息
Rogers Mary Am, Lemmen Kelsey, Kramer Rachel, Mann Jason, Chopra Vineet
机构信息
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
出版信息
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 24;19(3):e90. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7111.
BACKGROUND
Due to easy access and low cost, Internet-delivered therapies offer an attractive alternative to improving health. Although numerous websites contain health-related information, finding evidence-based programs (as demonstrated through randomized controlled trials, RCTs) can be challenging. We sought to bridge the divide between the knowledge gained from RCTs and communication of the results by conducting a global systematic review and analyzing the availability of evidence-based Internet health programs.
OBJECTIVES
The study aimed to (1) discover the range of health-related topics that are addressed through Internet-delivered interventions, (2) generate a list of current websites used in the trials which demonstrate a health benefit, and (3) identify gaps in the research that may have hindered dissemination. Our focus was on Internet-delivered self-guided health interventions that did not require real-time clinical support.
METHODS
A systematic review of meta-analyses was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42016041258). MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched. Inclusion criteria included (1) meta-analyses of RCTs, (2) at least one Internet-delivered intervention that measured a health-related outcome, and (3) use of at least one self-guided intervention. We excluded group-based therapies. There were no language restrictions.
RESULTS
Of the 363 records identified through the search, 71 meta-analyses met inclusion criteria. Within the 71 meta-analyses, there were 1733 studies that contained 268 unique RCTs which tested self-help interventions. On review of the 268 studies, 21.3% (57/268) had functional websites. These included evidence-based Web programs on substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis), mental health (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], phobias, panic disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder [OCD]), and on diet and physical activity. There were also evidence-based programs on insomnia, chronic pain, cardiovascular risk, and childhood health problems. These programs tended to be intensive, requiring weeks to months of engagement by the user, often including interaction, personalized and normative feedback, and self-monitoring. English was the most common language, although some were available in Spanish, French, Portuguese, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, and Mandarin. There were several interventions with numbers needed to treat of <5; these included painACTION, Mental Health Online for panic disorders, Deprexis, Triple P Online (TPOL), and U Can POOP Too. Hyperlinks of the sites have been listed.
CONCLUSIONS
A wide range of evidence-based Internet programs are currently available for health-related behaviors, as well as disease prevention and treatment. However, the majority of Internet-delivered health interventions found to be efficacious in RCTs do not have websites for general use. Increased efforts to provide mechanisms to host "interventions that work" on the Web and to assist the public in locating these sites are necessary.
背景
由于易于获取且成本低廉,互联网提供的治疗方法为改善健康提供了一种有吸引力的选择。尽管众多网站都包含与健康相关的信息,但找到基于证据的项目(如通过随机对照试验[RCT]所证明的)可能具有挑战性。我们试图通过进行一项全球系统评价并分析基于证据的互联网健康项目的可及性,来弥合从随机对照试验中获得的知识与结果传播之间的差距。
目的
该研究旨在(1)发现通过互联网提供的干预措施所涉及的与健康相关主题的范围,(2)生成一份当前在试验中使用的显示具有健康益处的网站列表,以及(3)识别可能阻碍传播的研究空白。我们关注的是无需实时临床支持的互联网提供的自我指导健康干预措施。
方法
使用系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南(PROSPERO注册号CRD42016041258)对Meta分析进行系统评价。通过Ovid检索MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Embase、Cochrane系统评价数据库以及护理和联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)。纳入标准包括:(1)随机对照试验的Meta分析,(2)至少一项测量与健康相关结局的互联网提供的干预措施,以及(3)使用至少一项自我指导干预措施。我们排除基于群体的治疗方法。没有语言限制。
结果
通过检索确定的363条记录中,71项Meta分析符合纳入标准。在这71项Meta分析中,有1733项研究包含268项测试自助干预措施的独特随机对照试验。在对这268项研究的审查中,21.3%(57/268)有实用网站。这些网站包括关于药物滥用(酒精、烟草、大麻)、心理健康(抑郁症、焦虑症、创伤后应激障碍[PTSD]、恐惧症、惊恐障碍、强迫症[OCD])以及饮食和身体活动的基于证据的网络项目。还有关于失眠、慢性疼痛、心血管风险和儿童健康问题的基于证据的项目。这些项目往往较为密集,要求用户参与数周甚至数月,通常包括互动、个性化和规范性反馈以及自我监测。英语是最常用的语言,不过有些也有西班牙语、法语、葡萄牙语、荷兰语、德语、挪威语、芬兰语、瑞典语和中文版本。有几项干预措施的治疗所需人数<5;其中包括painACTION、针对惊恐障碍的心理健康在线、Deprexis、Triple P Online(TPOL)以及U Can POOP Too。已列出这些网站的超链接。
结论
目前有各种各样基于证据的互联网项目可用于与健康相关的行为以及疾病的预防和治疗。然而,在随机对照试验中被发现有效的大多数互联网提供的健康干预措施没有可供大众使用的网站。有必要加大力度提供在网络上托管“有效的干预措施”的机制,并协助公众找到这些网站。
相似文献
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Early Hum Dev. 2020-11
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009
Campbell Syst Rev. 2018-6-1
引用本文的文献
BMC Oral Health. 2025-1-17
Musculoskeletal Care. 2025-3
本文引用的文献
Internet Interv. 2016-1-3
BMJ. 2016-12-1
Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2016-5-18
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016-5-20
Clin Psychol Rev. 2015-11-25