4.7 Review

Impact of guidance on intervention adherence in computerised interventions for mental health problems: a meta-analysis

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 229-240

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291721004621

关键词

Adherence; CBT; e-health; internet; mental health; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Grant [DP170100237]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Web-based interventions are increasingly used for mental health, and incorporating guidance in these interventions can significantly improve intervention completion rates.
Web-based interventions are increasingly used for the prevention, treatment and aftercare of mental disorders. A crucial factor to the efficacy of such online programmes is adherence to the intervention content and procedure. It has been frequently suggested that adherence in web-based interventions is low and little is known about which factors influence adherence. To increase intervention uptake and completion, studies increasingly include interventions with some form of guidance. Guided interventions have been shown to have higher efficacy, however, evidence for the impact on adherence is limited and mixed. This meta-analysis explored the impact of human guidance on intervention completion in web-based mental health interventions. A total of 22 studies were included with interventions primarily targeting symptoms of depression and anxiety disorders. Results showed that guidance significantly increases the average amount of intervention completion [g = 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.40] and the proportion of intervention completers [log odds ratio (OR) = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.66] with small effects. On average, full completion rates were 12% higher in guided intervention groups. This meta-analysis demonstrated that guidance in web-based mental health interventions does increase adherence, but more research is required to better understand the specific mechanisms between guidance, adherence and outcomes.

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