Li Sophie H, Achilles Melinda R, Werner-Seidler Aliza, Beames Joanne R, Subotic-Kerry Mirjana, O'Dea Bridianne
Black Dog Institute and School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
Black Dog Institute, The University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
JMIR Ment Health. 2022 Aug 17;9(8):e37640. doi: 10.2196/37640.
Digital, self-guided cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions circumvent many barriers to in-person therapy for young people (aged 12-24 years), although adherence to these interventions is low. The absence or insufficient disclosure of recommendations or instructions for appropriate use may account for this. As such, many young people may not self-administer these interventions appropriately or receive the optimal degree of treatment.
This systematic review aims to synthesize the literature on digital CBT for depression and anxiety in young people to describe how appropriate use has been defined and communicated to users as instructions for use, to describe how adherence has been measured, and to determine the associations between adherence and treatment outcomes.
A systematic review was conducted with 2 reviewers (SHL and MRA) extracting data independently. Overall, 4 electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) were searched in April 2021 for studies that met the following inclusion criteria: participants aged between 12 and 24 years, evaluated a digital CBT intervention targeting depression or anxiety, and reported instructions or recommendations for use or measures of adherence. Studies that evaluated non-CBT interventions or cognitive- or behavioral-only interventions were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Integrated Quality Criteria for the Review of Multiple Study Designs.
There were 32 manuscripts that met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 (88%) were unique studies (N=16,578 youths). Definitions of appropriate use varied among the different interventions in terms of intended recipients, duration and frequency of use, and the features used to support engagement and adherence to appropriate use definitions. Reporting of appropriate use definitions in studies was inconsistent, with no study systematically describing components of appropriate use or providing information on how recommendations for use were relayed to users. Most often, definitions of appropriate use were derived from the study protocol and descriptions of intervention features. Adherence was mostly operationalized as the degree of intervention completion; however, reporting of adherence data was heterogeneous. There was little evidence of an association between degree of use and outcomes in the 9 studies that examined this.
Definitions of appropriate use are unique to each digital CBT intervention. However, statements of appropriate use are not systematically reported in the literature. Furthermore, the extent to which recommendations for use are communicated to users is not routinely reported. Despite unique definitions of appropriate use, adherence was most often generically operationalized as the degree of intervention completion and was not consistently associated with outcomes. We proposed a framework to promote systematic reporting of definitions of appropriate use for digital interventions to provide guidance to users and to assist the development of appropriate and nuanced measures of adherence.
PROSPERO CRD42020208668; https://tinyurl.com/4bu2yram.
数字化的、自我引导的认知行为疗法(CBT)干预措施克服了许多针对12至24岁年轻人进行面对面治疗的障碍,尽管对这些干预措施的依从性较低。缺乏或未充分披露适当使用的建议或说明可能是造成这种情况的原因。因此,许多年轻人可能无法正确自行实施这些干预措施,或获得最佳治疗效果。
本系统评价旨在综合关于年轻人抑郁症和焦虑症的数字化CBT的文献,以描述如何定义适当使用并将其作为使用说明传达给用户,描述如何测量依从性,并确定依从性与治疗结果之间的关联。
由两名审稿人(SHL和MRA)独立进行系统评价并提取数据。2021年4月,对4个电子数据库(Embase、MEDLINE、PsycINFO和Cochrane图书馆)进行了检索,以查找符合以下纳入标准的研究:参与者年龄在12至24岁之间,评估针对抑郁症或焦虑症的数字化CBT干预措施,并报告使用说明或建议或依从性测量方法。排除评估非CBT干预措施或仅认知或行为干预措施的研究。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具和多研究设计综述的综合质量标准评估方法学质量。
有32篇手稿符合纳入标准,其中28篇(88%)为独立研究(N = 16578名青少年)。不同干预措施中适当使用(的定义)在目标受众、使用持续时间和频率以及用于支持参与和遵守适当使用定义的功能方面各不相同。研究中对适当使用定义的报告不一致,没有研究系统地描述适当使用的组成部分或提供关于如何将使用建议传达给用户的信息。最常见的情况是,适当使用的定义来自研究方案和干预措施特征的描述。依从性大多被定义为干预完成程度;然而,依从性数据的报告存在异质性。在9项研究中,几乎没有证据表明使用程度与结果之间存在关联。
每种数字化CBT干预措施的适当使用定义都是独特的。然而,文献中并未系统地报告适当使用的说明。此外,使用建议传达给用户的程度也未常规报告。尽管适当使用的定义各不相同,但依从性最常被笼统地定义为干预完成程度,且与结果并无一致关联。我们提出了一个框架,以促进对数字化干预措施适当使用定义的系统报告,为用户提供指导,并协助制定适当且细致入微的依从性测量方法。
PROSPERO CRD42020208668;https://tinyurl.com/4bu2yram 。