Long-Term Effectiveness of Internet-Based Versus Traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Across Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rūta Bakanaitė, Indrė Bakanienė, Ava Kanyeredzi
{"title":"Long-Term Effectiveness of Internet-Based Versus Traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Across Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Rūta Bakanaitė, Indrė Bakanienė, Ava Kanyeredzi","doi":"10.1177/15305627251358855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) has become a promising alternative to face-to-face CBT, yet its long-term effectiveness across psychiatric disorders remains unclear. While numerous studies have examined short-term outcomes, it is essential to understand how iCBT compares with traditional CBT over extended periods and which conditions benefit most. <b>Methods</b>: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE via EBSCO, PsycINFO via APA, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was conducted up to May 21, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term effects of iCBT and face-to-face CBT for depression, anxiety disorders, and eating disorders were included. The random-effects model was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (Hedges' g), and a chi-square test assessed adherence differences. <b>Results</b>: Eleven RCTs (1,272 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference in long-term effectiveness between iCBT and face-to-face CBT (Hedges' g = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 to 0.21). Depressive disorders responded best to iCBT, while anxiety disorders showed mixed results, and eating disorders had the least favorable outcomes. Adherence was higher in face-to-face CBT (86.68%) than in iCBT (70.06%), with therapist-guided iCBT improving completion rates (79.09%) compared with self-guided formats (48.17%). <b>Conclusions:</b> iCBT is a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face CBT, demonstrating treatment effectiveness even in the long term. However, dropout rates are higher in iCBT, particularly in unguided formats, suggesting that therapist support may be crucial for ensuring participant adherence. Future research should optimize iCBT delivery, tailor it to specific disorders, and develop strategies to improve engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":520784,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15305627251358855","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: Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) has become a promising alternative to face-to-face CBT, yet its long-term effectiveness across psychiatric disorders remains unclear. While numerous studies have examined short-term outcomes, it is essential to understand how iCBT compares with traditional CBT over extended periods and which conditions benefit most. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE via EBSCO, PsycINFO via APA, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was conducted up to May 21, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term effects of iCBT and face-to-face CBT for depression, anxiety disorders, and eating disorders were included. The random-effects model was used to calculate the standardized mean difference (Hedges' g), and a chi-square test assessed adherence differences. Results: Eleven RCTs (1,272 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference in long-term effectiveness between iCBT and face-to-face CBT (Hedges' g = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 to 0.21). Depressive disorders responded best to iCBT, while anxiety disorders showed mixed results, and eating disorders had the least favorable outcomes. Adherence was higher in face-to-face CBT (86.68%) than in iCBT (70.06%), with therapist-guided iCBT improving completion rates (79.09%) compared with self-guided formats (48.17%). Conclusions: iCBT is a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face CBT, demonstrating treatment effectiveness even in the long term. However, dropout rates are higher in iCBT, particularly in unguided formats, suggesting that therapist support may be crucial for ensuring participant adherence. Future research should optimize iCBT delivery, tailor it to specific disorders, and develop strategies to improve engagement.

基于网络与传统认知行为疗法在精神疾病治疗中的长期疗效:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:互联网提供的认知行为疗法(iCBT)已经成为面对面认知行为疗法的一种有希望的替代方案,但其对精神疾病的长期有效性尚不清楚。虽然许多研究都考察了短期效果,但了解iCBT与传统CBT在长期内的比较以及哪种情况下受益最大是至关重要的。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE (EBSCO)、PsycINFO (APA)、Scopus和Cochrane Library (CENTRAL),检索截止至2025年5月21日。随机对照试验(RCTs)比较了iCBT和面对面CBT治疗抑郁症、焦虑症和饮食失调的长期效果。随机效应模型用于计算标准化平均差(Hedges’g),卡方检验评估依从性差异。结果:11项rct(1,272名受试者)符合纳入标准。合并分析显示iCBT和面对面CBT的长期疗效无显著差异(Hedges' g = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.36 ~ 0.21)。抑郁症对iCBT的效果最好,而焦虑症的效果好坏参半,饮食失调的效果最差。面对面CBT的依从性(86.68%)高于iCBT(70.06%),治疗师指导的iCBT提高完成率(79.09%)高于自我指导的iCBT(48.17%)。结论:iCBT是传统面对面CBT的一种有希望的替代方案,即使从长期来看也显示出治疗效果。然而,iCBT的辍学率较高,特别是在无指导的形式中,这表明治疗师的支持可能对确保参与者的依从性至关重要。未来的研究应该优化iCBT的提供,使其适合特定的疾病,并制定策略来提高参与。
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信