Cognitive bias modification of interpretations for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis

JCPP advances Pub Date : 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1002/jcv2.12207
Gemma Sicouri, Emily K. Daniel, Michael J. Spoelma, Elske Salemink, Emma A. McDermott, Jennifer L. Hudson
{"title":"Cognitive bias modification of interpretations for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis","authors":"Gemma Sicouri,&nbsp;Emily K. Daniel,&nbsp;Michael J. Spoelma,&nbsp;Elske Salemink,&nbsp;Emma A. McDermott,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Hudson","doi":"10.1002/jcv2.12207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence suggests that cognitive bias modification of interpretations (CBM-I) is effective in modifying interpretation biases and has a small effect on reducing anxiety in children and adolescents. However, most evidence to date is based on studies which report anxiety or general distress using <i>ad-hoc</i> Likert-type or Visual Analogue Scales, which are useful but do not reliably index symptoms of clinical importance. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the effects of CBM-I for children and adolescents on both anxiety and depression using psychometrically validated symptom measures, as well as state negative affect and negative and positive interpretation bias.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We identified studies through a systematic search. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to target interpretation biases, not combine CBM-I with another intervention, randomly allocate participants to CBM-I or a control condition, assess a mental health outcome (i.e., anxiety or depression symptoms using validated measures or state measures of negative affect) and/or interpretation bias and have a mean age less than 18 years.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified 36 studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. CBM-I had a small and non-significant unadjusted effect on anxiety symptoms (<i>g</i> = 0.16), no effect on depression symptoms (<i>g</i> = −0.03), and small and non-significant unadjusted effects on state negative affect both at post-training (<i>g</i> = 0.16) and following a stressor task (<i>g</i> = 0.23). In line with previous findings, CBM-I had moderate to large unadjusted effects on negative and positive interpretations (<i>g</i> = 0.78 and <i>g</i> = 0.52). No significant moderators were identified.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>CBM-I is effective at modifying interpretation bias, however there were no effects on mental health outcomes. The substantial variability across studies and paucity of studies using validated symptom measures highlight the need to establish randomized controlled trial protocols that evaluate CBM-I in clinical youth samples to determine its future as a clinical intervention.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73542,"journal":{"name":"JCPP advances","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcv2.12207","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCPP advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcv2.12207","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

Background

Evidence suggests that cognitive bias modification of interpretations (CBM-I) is effective in modifying interpretation biases and has a small effect on reducing anxiety in children and adolescents. However, most evidence to date is based on studies which report anxiety or general distress using ad-hoc Likert-type or Visual Analogue Scales, which are useful but do not reliably index symptoms of clinical importance. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the effects of CBM-I for children and adolescents on both anxiety and depression using psychometrically validated symptom measures, as well as state negative affect and negative and positive interpretation bias.

Methods

We identified studies through a systematic search. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to target interpretation biases, not combine CBM-I with another intervention, randomly allocate participants to CBM-I or a control condition, assess a mental health outcome (i.e., anxiety or depression symptoms using validated measures or state measures of negative affect) and/or interpretation bias and have a mean age less than 18 years.

Results

We identified 36 studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. CBM-I had a small and non-significant unadjusted effect on anxiety symptoms (g = 0.16), no effect on depression symptoms (g = −0.03), and small and non-significant unadjusted effects on state negative affect both at post-training (g = 0.16) and following a stressor task (g = 0.23). In line with previous findings, CBM-I had moderate to large unadjusted effects on negative and positive interpretations (g = 0.78 and g = 0.52). No significant moderators were identified.

Conclusions

CBM-I is effective at modifying interpretation bias, however there were no effects on mental health outcomes. The substantial variability across studies and paucity of studies using validated symptom measures highlight the need to establish randomized controlled trial protocols that evaluate CBM-I in clinical youth samples to determine its future as a clinical intervention.

Abstract Image

对儿童和青少年焦虑症和抑郁症解释的认知偏差修正:荟萃分析
有证据表明,解释认知偏差修正法(CBM-I)可以有效地修正解释偏差,并对减轻儿童和青少年的焦虑有一定的效果。然而,迄今为止的大多数证据都是基于使用临时李克特量表或视觉模拟量表来报告焦虑或一般困扰的研究,这些量表虽然有用,但并不能可靠地反映具有临床重要性的症状。本荟萃分析旨在通过使用经心理测量学验证的症状测量方法,以及状态负性情绪、负性和正性解释偏差,确定 CBM-I 对儿童和青少年焦虑和抑郁的影响。要符合纳入条件,研究必须针对解释偏差、不将CBM-I与其他干预措施相结合、将参与者随机分配到CBM-I或对照条件下、评估心理健康结果(即使用有效测量方法或消极情绪状态测量方法评估焦虑或抑郁症状)和/或解释偏差,并且平均年龄小于18岁。CBM-I 对焦虑症状(g = 0.16)有微小且不显著的未调整影响,对抑郁症状(g = -0.03)无影响,对训练后(g = 0.16)和压力任务后(g = 0.23)的状态负性情绪有微小且不显著的未调整影响。与之前的研究结果一致,CBM-I 对消极和积极解释(g = 0.78 和 g = 0.52)具有中等至较大的未调整效应。CBM-I能有效改变解释偏差,但对心理健康结果没有影响。不同研究之间存在很大差异,而且使用有效症状测量方法的研究很少,这突出表明有必要制定随机对照试验方案,在临床青年样本中评估 CBM-I,以确定其作为临床干预措施的前景。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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