Domhardt M, Letsch J, Kybelka J, Koenigbauer J, Doebler P, Baumeister H. Are Internet- and mobile-based interventions effective in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Affect Disord 2020;
276:169-182. [PMID:
32697696 DOI:
10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.059]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2020] [Revised: 05/20/2020] [Accepted: 06/16/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
There is no meta-analysis that specifically evaluates the effectiveness of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia (PD/A) so far. The current meta-analysis aims to fill this gap (PROSPERO CRD 42016034016).
METHODS
Systematic literature searches in six databases for randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating IMIs in adults, who met diagnostic criteria for PD/A. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses, pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted when appropriate. Primary outcomes were PD and A symptom severity. In addition, adherence, response, remission, quality of life, anxiety and depression symptom severity were examined.
RESULTS
A total of 16 trials (1015 patients), with 21 comparisons (9 IMI vs. waitlist; 7 IMI vs. IMI; 5 IMI vs. active treatment condition), were included. IMIs revealed beneficial effects on panic (Hedges' g range -2.61 to -0.25) and agoraphobia symptom severity when compared to waitlist (pooled g = -1.15, [95%-CI = -1.56; -0.74]). Studies comparing IMIs to active controls (i.e., face-to-face CBT and applied relaxation) did not find significant differences for reductions in panic (g = -0.02, [95%-CI = -0.25; 0.21]) and agoraphobia symptom severity (g = -0.10, [95%-CI = -0.39; 0.19]). Furthermore, IMIs were superior to waitlist controls regarding anxiety and depression symptom severity and quality of life.
LIMITATIONS
Tests for publication bias were not feasible due to the limited number of trials per comparison, and the risk of bias assessment indicated some methodological shortcomings.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this meta-analytic review provide support for the effectiveness of IMIs in patients with verified PD/A. However, before IMIs can be included in treatment guidelines for PD/A, future high quality research is needed that substantiates and extends the evidence base, especially in regard to intervention safety.
Collapse