4.2 Review

Cognitive-behavioural therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijn.12699

关键词

behavior therapy; cognitive; inflammatory bowel diseases; meta-analysis; nursing; quality of life

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [17YJCZH237107]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [71704132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Methods Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Pubmed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up to June 2017, as well as grey literature and databases hand searches. Quality assessment, heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were performed. Stata12.0 software was used for pooled estimates. Results Seven eligible reports were included in the final analysis. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire score was higher in the cognitive-behavioural therapy group than in the control group at the final follow-up in inflammatory bowel disease patients (P = 0.008). There was no statistically significant difference in the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (P = 0.751), Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index score (P = 0.747), State Anxiety score (P = 0.988), Trait Anxiety score (P = 0.681), and Perceived Stress Questionnaire score (P = 0.936) at the final point of follow-up. A funnel plot showed no publication bias (P = 0.98). Conclusion Cognitive-behavioural therapy appeared to support higher quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease patients compared with a control group at the final follow-up point but had no effect on disease activity, anxiety, or perceived stress in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Cognitive-behavioural therapy can be an acceptable adjunctive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease patients, but the effect of cognitive-behavioural therapy is limited.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据