Back to Search Start Over

Effectiveness of live health professional-led group eHealth interventions for adult mental health: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Authors :
Currie, Cheryl L.
Larouche, Richard
Voss, Lauren
Trottier, Maegan
Spiwak, Rae
Higa, Erin
Scott, David R.
Tallow, Treena
Currie, Cheryl L.
Larouche, Richard
Voss, Lauren
Trottier, Maegan
Spiwak, Rae
Higa, Erin
Scott, David R.
Tallow, Treena
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had adverse impacts on mental health and substance use worldwide. Systematic reviews suggest eHealth interventions can be effective at addressing these problems. However, strong positive eHealth outcomes are often tied to the intensity of web-based therapist guidance, which has time and cost implications that can make the population scale-up of more effective interventions difficult. A way to offset cost while maintaining the intensity of therapist guidance is to offer eHealth programs to groups rather than more standard one-on-one formats. Objective: This systematic review aims to assess experimental evidence for the effectiveness of live health professional–led group eHealth interventions on mental health, substance use, or bereavement among community-dwelling adults. Within the articles selected for our primary aim, we also seek to examine the impact of interventions that encourage physical activity compared with those that do not. Methods: Overall, 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched in July 2020. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of eHealth interventions led by health professionals and delivered entirely to adult groups by videoconference, teleconference, or webchat. Eligible studies reported mental health, substance use, or bereavement as primary outcomes. The results were examined by outcome, eHealth platform, and intervention length. Postintervention data were used to calculate effect size by study. The findings were summarized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool. Results: Of the 4099 identified studies, 21 (0.51%) RCTs representing 20 interventions met the inclusion criteria. These studies examined mental health outcomes among 2438 participants (sample size range: 47-361 participants per study) across 7 countries. When effect sizes were pooled, live health professional–led

Details

Database :
OAIster
Notes :
en_US
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1303724125
Document Type :
Electronic Resource