4.7 Review

The acceptability to patients of computerized cognitive behaviour therapy for depression: a systematic review

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 1521-1530

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291707002607

关键词

CCBT; computer programs; patient acceptability

资金

  1. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme [04/01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is widely used to treat depression. However, CBT is not always available to patients because of a shortage of therapists and long waiting times. Computerized CBT (CCBT) is one of several alternatives Currently available to treat patients with depression. Evidence of its clinical effectiveness has led to programs being used increasingly within the UK and elsewhere. However, little information is available regarding the acceptability of CCBT to patients. Method. A systematic review of sources of information on acceptability to patients of CCBT for depression. Results. Sources of information on acceptability included: recruitment rates, patient drop-outs and patient-completed questionnaires. We identified 16 studies of CCBT for the treatment of depression that provided at least some information on these sources. Limited information was provided on patient take-Up rates and recruitment methods. Drop-out rates were comparable to other forms of treatment. Take-up rates, when reported, were Much lower. Six of the 16 studies included specific questions on patient acceptability or satisfaction although information was only provided for those who had completed treatment. Several studies have reported positive expectancies and high satisfaction in routine care CCBT services for those completing treatment. Conclusions. Trials of CCBT should include more detailed information on patient recruitment methods, drop-out rates and reasons for dropping out. It is important that well-designed surveys and qualitative studies are included alongside trials to determine levels and determinants of patient acceptability.

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

4.7
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