Absolute and relative rates of treatment non-initiation, dropout, and attrition in internet-based and face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Jake Linardon, Mariel Messer, Remony Reid, Tayarna Bolger, Gerhard Andersson
{"title":"Absolute and relative rates of treatment non-initiation, dropout, and attrition in internet-based and face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Jake Linardon, Mariel Messer, Remony Reid, Tayarna Bolger, Gerhard Andersson","doi":"10.1080/16506073.2025.2542364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) appears to produce comparable clinical benefits to face-to-face CBT. However, whether these two CBT modalities are equally accepted by patients remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis examining absolute and relative rates of treatment non-initiation, dropout, and attrition in ICBT and face-to-face CBT. Thirty trials comparing ICBT to face-to-face CBT for psychiatric and somatic disorders were included. Pooled event rates were calculated to estimate absolute rates of treatment non-initiation, dropout, and attrition. Risk ratios (RR) were computed to compare relative rates between modalities. Absolute rates of treatment non-initiation for ICBT were 8.7% (95% CI = 5.0-14.5) compared to 11.9% for face-to-face CBT (95% CI = 8.3-16.8), which produced a significant RR of 0.58. This effect remained significant in various sensitivity analyses. Absolute rates of treatment dropout were 16.3% (95% CI = 11.8-22.2) for ICBT and 12.0% (95% CI = 7.6-18.5) for face-to-face CBT, while absolute rates of post-treatment and follow-up attrition were 15.2% (95% CI = 11.1-20.4) and 22.3% (95% CI = 16.9-28.8) for ICBT and 14.1% (95% CI = 10.3-19.0) and 23.1% (95% CI = 17.5-29.7) for face-to-face CBT, respectively. These RRs were non-significant. Findings suggest that while ICBT is more readily initiated than face-to-face CBT, both modalities demonstrate comparable rates of treatment completion and study retention across diverse clinical contexts.","PeriodicalId":10535,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","volume":"12 1","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2025.2542364","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) appears to produce comparable clinical benefits to face-to-face CBT. However, whether these two CBT modalities are equally accepted by patients remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis examining absolute and relative rates of treatment non-initiation, dropout, and attrition in ICBT and face-to-face CBT. Thirty trials comparing ICBT to face-to-face CBT for psychiatric and somatic disorders were included. Pooled event rates were calculated to estimate absolute rates of treatment non-initiation, dropout, and attrition. Risk ratios (RR) were computed to compare relative rates between modalities. Absolute rates of treatment non-initiation for ICBT were 8.7% (95% CI = 5.0-14.5) compared to 11.9% for face-to-face CBT (95% CI = 8.3-16.8), which produced a significant RR of 0.58. This effect remained significant in various sensitivity analyses. Absolute rates of treatment dropout were 16.3% (95% CI = 11.8-22.2) for ICBT and 12.0% (95% CI = 7.6-18.5) for face-to-face CBT, while absolute rates of post-treatment and follow-up attrition were 15.2% (95% CI = 11.1-20.4) and 22.3% (95% CI = 16.9-28.8) for ICBT and 14.1% (95% CI = 10.3-19.0) and 23.1% (95% CI = 17.5-29.7) for face-to-face CBT, respectively. These RRs were non-significant. Findings suggest that while ICBT is more readily initiated than face-to-face CBT, both modalities demonstrate comparable rates of treatment completion and study retention across diverse clinical contexts.
基于网络和面对面的认知行为治疗中治疗非开始、退出和减少的绝对和相对比率:随机对照试验的荟萃分析
基于互联网的认知行为疗法(ICBT)似乎产生了与面对面CBT相当的临床效果。然而,这两种CBT模式是否同样被患者接受尚不清楚。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,检查ICBT和面对面CBT的治疗非开始、退出和减员的绝对和相对比率。30个比较ICBT和面对面CBT治疗精神和躯体疾病的试验被纳入。计算合并事件率以估计治疗不开始、退出和减员的绝对发生率。计算风险比(RR)以比较不同治疗方式的相对发生率。ICBT非开始治疗的绝对比率为8.7% (95% CI = 5.0-14.5),而面对面CBT的绝对比率为11.9% (95% CI = 8.3-16.8),显著RR为0.58。在各种敏感性分析中,这种效应仍然显著。ICBT的绝对放弃率为16.3% (95% CI = 11.8-22.2),面对面CBT的绝对放弃率为12.0% (95% CI = 7.6-18.5),而ICBT的绝对放弃率和随访损失率分别为15.2% (95% CI = 11.1-20.4)和22.3% (95% CI = 16.9-28.8),面对面CBT的绝对放弃率分别为14.1% (95% CI = 10.3-19.0)和23.1% (95% CI = 17.5-29.7)。这些rr均不显著。研究结果表明,虽然ICBT比面对面CBT更容易启动,但两种方式在不同临床背景下的治疗完成率和研究保持率相当。
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
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the application of behavioural and cognitive sciences to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The journal publishes state-of-the-art scientific articles within: - clinical and health psychology - psychopathology - behavioural medicine - assessment - treatment - theoretical issues pertinent to behavioural, cognitive and combined cognitive behavioural therapies With the number of high quality contributions increasing, the journal has been able to maintain a rapid publication schedule, providing readers with the latest research in the field.
×
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