Remote vs Face-to-face Interventions for Bulimia Nervosa and Binge-eating Disorder: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Myrto T. Samara, Niki Michou, Aikaterini Argyrou, Elissavet Mathioudaki, Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi, Eirini Tsekitsidi, Zoi A. Polyzopoulou, Andreas S. Lappas, Nikos Christodoulou, Georgios Papazisis, Michail Chourdakis
{"title":"Remote vs Face-to-face Interventions for Bulimia Nervosa and Binge-eating Disorder: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis","authors":"Myrto T. Samara, Niki Michou, Aikaterini Argyrou, Elissavet Mathioudaki, Dimitra Rafailia Bakaloudi, Eirini Tsekitsidi, Zoi A. Polyzopoulou, Andreas S. Lappas, Nikos Christodoulou, Georgios Papazisis, Michail Chourdakis","doi":"10.1007/s41347-023-00345-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Remote delivery of interventions (e.g., online sessions, telephone sessions, e-mails, SMS, applications) facilitate access to health care and might be an efficacious alternative to face to face treatments for bulimia nervosa (BN) and binge-eating disorder (BED). Telehealth has evolved rapidly in recent years, facilitating access to health care, as it seems to be more accessible among different groups of the population. In the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared remote versus face-to-face interventions for the treatment of BN and BED. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP and reference lists of relevant articles up to April, 2023. The primary outcomes were remission (defined as abstinence from binge/bulimic episodes for at least 2 weeks) and frequency of binge episodes. We also analyzed frequency of purging episodes, response, mean values of eating disorder psychopathology, depression, anxiety, and quality of life rating scales as well as drop-out rates and adverse effects. Six RCTs were identified with a total of 698 participants. Face-to-face interventions were found more effective than remote interventions in terms of remission (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, P = 0.004, 4 RCTs, N = 526), but the result was mainly driven by one study. No important differences were found in the remaining outcomes; nevertheless, most comparisons were underpowered. Few adverse effects were reported. Remote interventions demonstrated comparable efficacy to face-to-face interventions in treating BN and BED, providing effective and acceptable healthcare to patients who would otherwise go untreated. Nonetheless, to arrive at more definitive and secure conclusions, it is imperative that additional randomized controlled trials and robust real-world effectiveness studies, preferably with appropriate comparison groups, are conducted.","PeriodicalId":73962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of technology in behavioral science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of technology in behavioral science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-023-00345-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Remote delivery of interventions (e.g., online sessions, telephone sessions, e-mails, SMS, applications) facilitate access to health care and might be an efficacious alternative to face to face treatments for bulimia nervosa (BN) and binge-eating disorder (BED). Telehealth has evolved rapidly in recent years, facilitating access to health care, as it seems to be more accessible among different groups of the population. In the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared remote versus face-to-face interventions for the treatment of BN and BED. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP and reference lists of relevant articles up to April, 2023. The primary outcomes were remission (defined as abstinence from binge/bulimic episodes for at least 2 weeks) and frequency of binge episodes. We also analyzed frequency of purging episodes, response, mean values of eating disorder psychopathology, depression, anxiety, and quality of life rating scales as well as drop-out rates and adverse effects. Six RCTs were identified with a total of 698 participants. Face-to-face interventions were found more effective than remote interventions in terms of remission (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, P = 0.004, 4 RCTs, N = 526), but the result was mainly driven by one study. No important differences were found in the remaining outcomes; nevertheless, most comparisons were underpowered. Few adverse effects were reported. Remote interventions demonstrated comparable efficacy to face-to-face interventions in treating BN and BED, providing effective and acceptable healthcare to patients who would otherwise go untreated. Nonetheless, to arrive at more definitive and secure conclusions, it is imperative that additional randomized controlled trials and robust real-world effectiveness studies, preferably with appropriate comparison groups, are conducted.
远程与面对面干预对神经性贪食症和暴食症的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析
远程干预(例如,在线会议,电话会议,电子邮件,短信,应用程序)促进获得卫生保健,可能是一个有效的替代面对面治疗神经性贪食症(BN)和暴饮暴食症(BED)。近年来,远程保健发展迅速,促进了获得保健服务,因为不同人群似乎更容易获得保健服务。鉴于COVID-19大流行,我们决定对比较远程干预与面对面干预治疗BN和BED的随机对照试验(rct)进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们检索了EMBASE、PubMed、CENTRAL、ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO ICTRP以及截至2023年4月的相关文章的参考文献列表。主要结果是缓解(定义为从暴食/暴食发作中禁欲至少2周)和暴食发作的频率。我们还分析了排便发作的频率、反应、饮食失调精神病理、抑郁、焦虑和生活质量评定量表的平均值以及退学率和不良反应。6项随机对照试验共纳入698名受试者。面对面干预被发现在缓解方面比远程干预更有效(RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 ~ 0.89, P = 0.004, 4个rct, N = 526),但结果主要是由一项研究驱动的。其余结果没有发现重大差异;然而,大多数比较都不够有力。几乎没有不良反应的报道。在治疗BN和BED方面,远程干预显示出与面对面干预相当的疗效,为不接受治疗的患者提供了有效和可接受的医疗保健。然而,为了得出更明确和可靠的结论,必须进行额外的随机对照试验和可靠的现实世界有效性研究,最好有适当的对照组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信