Suppr超能文献

用于治疗饮食失调的数字干预中的行为改变技术:系统评价与荟萃分析

Behavior Change Techniques Within Digital Interventions for the Treatment of Eating Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Thomas Pamela Carien, Curtis Kristina, Potts Henry W W, Bark Pippa, Perowne Rachel, Rookes Tasmin, Rowe Sarah

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology & Applied Clinical Research, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

JMIR Ment Health. 2024 Aug 1;11:e57577. doi: 10.2196/57577.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews of digital eating disorder interventions have demonstrated effectiveness at improving symptoms of eating disorders; however, our understanding of how these interventions work and what contributes to their effectiveness is limited. Understanding the behavior change techniques (BCTs) that are most commonly included within effective interventions may provide valuable information for researchers and developers. Establishing whether these techniques have been informed by theory will identify whether they target those mechanisms of action that have been identified as core to changing eating disorder behaviors. It will also evaluate the importance of a theoretical approach to digital intervention design.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to define the BCTs within digital self-management interventions or minimally guided self-help interventions for adults with eating disorders that have been evaluated within randomized controlled trials. It also assessed which of the digital interventions were grounded in theory and the range of modes of delivery included.

METHODS

A literature search identified randomized controlled trials of digital intervention for the treatment of adults with eating disorders with minimal therapist support. Each digital intervention was coded for BCTs using the established BCT Taxonomy v1; for the application of theory using an adapted version of the theory coding scheme (TCS); and for modes of delivery using the Mode of Delivery Ontology. A meta-analysis evaluated the evidence that any individual BCT moderated effect size or that other potential factors such as the application of theory or number of modes of delivery had an effect on eating disorder outcomes.

RESULTS

Digital interventions included an average of 14 (SD 2.6; range 9-18) BCTs. Self-monitoring of behavior was included in all effective interventions, with Problem-solving, Information about antecedents, Feedback on behavior, Self-monitoring of outcomes of behavior, and Action planning identified in >75% (13/17) of effective interventions. Social support and Information about health consequences were more evident in effective interventions at follow-up compared with postintervention measurement. The mean number of modes of delivery was 4 (SD 1.6; range 2-7) out of 12 possible modes, with most interventions (15/17, 88%) being web based. Digital interventions that had a higher score on the TCS had a greater effect size than those with a lower TCS score (subgroup differences: χ=9.7; P=.002; I²=89.7%) within the meta-analysis. No other subgroup analyses had statistically significant results.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high level of consistency in terms of the most common BCTs within effective interventions; however, there was no evidence that any specific BCT contributed to intervention efficacy. The interventions that were more strongly informed by theory demonstrated greater improvements in eating disorder outcomes compared to waitlist or treatment-as-usual controls. These results can be used to inform the development of future digital eating disorder interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023410060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=410060.

摘要

背景

以往对数字饮食失调干预措施的系统评价表明,这些措施在改善饮食失调症状方面是有效的;然而,我们对这些干预措施如何发挥作用以及其有效性的影响因素的了解有限。了解有效干预措施中最常包含的行为改变技术(BCTs)可能会为研究人员和开发者提供有价值的信息。确定这些技术是否有理论依据,将有助于确定它们是否针对那些被认为是改变饮食失调行为核心的作用机制。这也将评估理论方法在数字干预设计中的重要性。

目的

本研究旨在确定在随机对照试验中评估过的针对患有饮食失调的成年人的数字自我管理干预措施或最低限度指导自助干预措施中的BCTs。它还评估了哪些数字干预措施有理论依据以及所包括的交付模式范围。

方法

通过文献检索确定了在治疗患有饮食失调的成年人时,在治疗师支持最少的情况下进行数字干预的随机对照试验。使用已建立的BCT分类法v1对每个数字干预措施的BCTs进行编码;使用理论编码方案(TCS)的改编版本对理论应用进行编码;使用交付模式本体对交付模式进行编码。一项荟萃分析评估了任何单个BCT调节效应大小的证据,以及其他潜在因素,如理论应用或交付模式数量对饮食失调结果的影响。

结果

数字干预措施平均包含14种(标准差2.6;范围9 - 18)BCTs。行为自我监测包含在所有有效的干预措施中,解决问题、关于前因的信息、行为反馈、行为结果自我监测和行动计划在超过75%(13/17)的有效干预措施中被确定。与干预后测量相比,在随访时有效的干预措施中社会支持和关于健康后果的信息更为明显。在12种可能的模式中,平均交付模式数量为4种(标准差1.6;范围2 - 7),大多数干预措施(15/—— 17,88%)是基于网络的。在荟萃分析中,TCS得分较高的数字干预措施比得分较低的措施具有更大的效应大小(亚组差异:χ=9.7;P = 0.002;I² = 89.7%)。没有其他亚组分析有统计学显著结果。

结论

有效干预措施中最常见的BCTs在很大程度上具有一致性;然而,没有证据表明任何特定的BCT对干预效果有贡献。与等待名单或常规治疗对照相比,有更强理论依据的干预措施在饮食失调结果方面有更大改善。这些结果可用于指导未来数字饮食失调干预措施的开发。

试验注册

PROSPERO CRD42023410060;https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=410060

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2d07/11327638/46c58226d5e2/mental_v11i1e57577_fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验