Wells Michael J, Owen Jesse J, McCray Laura W, Bishop Laura B, Eells Tracy D, Brown Gregory K, Richards Derek, Thase Michael E, Wright Jesse H
Department of Family and Geriatric Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208.
Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2018 Mar 1;20(2):17r02196. doi: 10.4088/PCC.17r02196.
To examine evidence for the effectiveness of computer-assisted cognitive-behavior therapy (CCBT) for depression in primary care and assess the impact of therapist-supported CCBT versus self-guided CCBT.
A search for randomized studies of CCBT compared to control groups for treating depression in primary care settings was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus. We extracted the following information from the studies that met inclusion criteria: mean depression rating scale scores before and after treatment, number of patients, type of control group and CCBT program, therapist support time and method of support, and treatment completion rate. Meta-analyses compared differences between posttreatment mean scores in each condition, as well as mean scores at follow-up. Study quality and possible bias also were assessed.
Eight studies of CCBT for depression in primary care met inclusion criteria. The overall effect size was g = 0.258, indicating a small but significant advantage for CCBT over control conditions. Therapist support was provided in 4 of the 8 studies. The effect size for therapist-supported CCBT was g = 0.372-a moderate effect. However, the effect size for self-guided CCBT was g = 0.038, indicating little effect.
Implementation of therapist-supported CCBT in primary care settings could enhance treatment efficiency, reduce cost, and improve access to effective treatment for depression. However, evidence to date suggests that self-guided CCBT offers no benefits over usual primary care.
研究计算机辅助认知行为疗法(CCBT)在初级保健中治疗抑郁症的有效性证据,并评估有治疗师支持的CCBT与自我指导的CCBT的效果差异。
通过Ovid MEDLINE、PsycINFO、PubMed和Scopus对在初级保健环境中比较CCBT与对照组治疗抑郁症的随机研究进行检索。我们从符合纳入标准的研究中提取了以下信息:治疗前后的平均抑郁评定量表得分、患者数量、对照组和CCBT项目的类型、治疗师支持时间和支持方法以及治疗完成率。荟萃分析比较了每种情况下治疗后平均得分之间的差异以及随访时的平均得分。还评估了研究质量和可能的偏倚。
八项关于初级保健中CCBT治疗抑郁症的研究符合纳入标准。总体效应量为g = 0.258,表明CCBT比对照条件有小但显著的优势。八项研究中有四项提供了治疗师支持。有治疗师支持的CCBT的效应量为g = 0.372——中等效应。然而,自我指导的CCBT的效应量为g = 0.038,表明效果甚微。
在初级保健环境中实施有治疗师支持的CCBT可以提高治疗效率、降低成本并改善抑郁症有效治疗的可及性。然而,迄今为止的证据表明,自我指导的CCBT与常规初级保健相比并无优势。