Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 235 E. Cameron Avenue, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270, USA.
Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 235 E. Cameron Avenue, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270, USA.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Jun;78:101858. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101858. Epub 2020 Apr 30.
Treatment engagement is a primary challenge to the effectiveness of evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents. One solution to this challenge is technology, which has been proposed as an enhancement to or replacement for standard clinic-based, therapist delivered services. This review summarizes the current state of the field regarding technology's promise to enhance engagement. A review of this literature suggests that although the focus of much theoretical consideration, as well as funding priorities, relatively little empirical research has been published on the role of technology as a vehicle to enhance engagement in particular. Moreover, lack of consistency in constructs, design, and measures make it difficult to draw useful comparisons across studies and, in turn, to determine if and what progress has been made toward more definitive conclusions. At this point in the literature, we can say only that we do not yet definitively know if technology does (or does not) enhance engagement in evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents. Recommendations are provided with the hope of more definitively assessing technology's capacity to improve engagement, including more studies explicitly designed to assess this research question, as well as greater consistency across studies in the measurement of and designs used to test engagement.
治疗参与是儿童和青少年基于证据的治疗有效性的主要挑战。解决这一挑战的一种方法是技术，它被提议作为对标准临床治疗师提供的服务的增强或替代。本综述总结了关于技术在增强参与方面的前景的现有领域。这方面文献的综述表明，尽管技术作为增强参与的载体的作用受到了很多理论考虑和资金优先事项的关注，但相对较少的实证研究已经发表。此外，在构建、设计和措施方面缺乏一致性，使得很难在研究之间进行有用的比较，从而难以确定是否以及取得了哪些进展，以得出更明确的结论。在文献的现阶段，我们只能说，我们还不能确定技术是否（或不）增强儿童和青少年基于证据的治疗的参与度。提供了一些建议，希望更明确地评估技术改善参与度的能力，包括更多专门用于评估这一研究问题的研究，以及在测量和用于测试参与度的设计方面在研究之间有更大的一致性。
