Department of Psychology, Harvard University.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston.
Am Psychol. 2022 Jan;77(1):71-84. doi: 10.1037/amp0000816. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
Reports on remote psychotherapies for youth (e.g., technology-based treatment) suggest it is acceptable, feasible, and useful in overcoming logistical barriers to treatment. But how effective is remote care? To find out, PsycINFO and PubMed were searched from 1960 through 2020, supplemented by journal searches and reference trails, to identify randomized controlled trials of youth psychotherapy for anxiety (including obsessive-compulsive disorder and trauma), depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or conduct problems, in which all therapeutic contact occurred remotely. Articles ( = 37) published from 1988 through 2020, reporting 43 treatment-control group comparisons, were identified. Robust variance estimation was used to account for effect size dependencies and to synthesize overall effects and test candidate moderators. Pooled effect size was .47 (95% confidence interval [CI: .26, .67], < .001) at posttreatment, .44 (95% CI [.12, .76], < .05) at follow-up-comparable to effects reported in meta-analyses of in-person youth psychotherapy. Effects were significantly (a) larger for remote psychotherapies supported by therapeutic provider contact (.64) than for those accessed by youths, with only logistical support (.22), (b) larger for treatments with phone contact (.65) than for those without (.25), (c) larger for treatment of anxiety (.62) and conduct problems (.78) than ADHD (-.03), and (d) smaller for therapies involving attention/working memory training (-.18) than for those without (.60). Among studies with therapeutic contact, effects were significantly larger when therapists facilitated skill-building (e.g., practicing exposures or problem solving [.68]) than when therapists did not (.18). These findings support the effectiveness of remote psychotherapies for youths, and they highlight moderators of treatment benefit that warrant attention in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
报告称,远程心理疗法(例如基于技术的治疗)对于克服治疗的后勤障碍是可以接受、可行且有用的。但是远程护理的效果如何呢?为了找出答案,从 1960 年到 2020 年,在 PsycINFO 和 PubMed 上进行了搜索,并补充了期刊搜索和参考文献检索,以确定针对焦虑症(包括强迫症和创伤后应激障碍)、抑郁症、注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)或品行问题的青年心理治疗的随机对照试验,其中所有治疗性接触均远程进行。从 1988 年到 2020 年发表的 37 篇文章报告了 43 个治疗-对照组比较,确定了这些文章。使用稳健方差估计来解释效应大小的依赖性,并综合总体效应和检验候选调节因素。治疗结束时的合并效应大小为.47(95%置信区间 [CI:.26,.67], <.001),随访时为.44(95% CI [.12,.76], <.05),与人际心理治疗的荟萃分析报告的效应相当。对于有治疗提供者接触的远程心理治疗(.64),与仅提供后勤支持的远程心理治疗(.22)相比,效应显著更大;对于有电话接触的治疗(.65)与没有电话接触的治疗(.25)相比,效应显著更大;对于治疗焦虑症(.62)和品行问题(.78)与 ADHD(-.03)相比,效应显著更大;对于涉及注意力/工作记忆训练的治疗(-.18)与没有这些训练的治疗(.60)相比,效应显著更小。在有治疗接触的研究中,当治疗师促进技能培养(例如,练习暴露或解决问题 [.68])时,效果显著大于治疗师不促进技能培养时(.18)。这些发现支持了远程心理疗法对青少年的有效性,并强调了治疗效果的调节因素,这在未来的研究中值得关注。(PsycINFO 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。