Back to Search Start Over

Are Internet- and mobile-based interventions effective in adults with diagnosed panic disorder and/or agoraphobia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors :
Domhardt M
Letsch J
Kybelka J
Koenigbauer J
Doebler P
Baumeister H
Source :
Journal of affective disorders [J Affect Disord] 2020 Nov 01; Vol. 276, pp. 169-182. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jul 15.
Publication Year :
2020

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).<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br /> (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1573-2517
Volume :
276
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Journal of affective disorders
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
32697696
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.059