在线小组干预与面对面小组干预的功效比较：系统回顾

IF 1.7 4区社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK

Research on Social Work Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1177/10497315241236966

Maryam Rafieifar, Alice Schmidt Hanbidge, Sloan Bruan Lorenzini, Mark J. Macgowan

{"title":"在线小组干预与面对面小组干预的功效比较：系统回顾","authors":"Maryam Rafieifar, Alice Schmidt Hanbidge, Sloan Bruan Lorenzini, Mark J. Macgowan","doi":"10.1177/10497315241236966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Online group-based interventions are widely adopted, but their efficacy, when compared with similar face-to-face (F2F) psychosocial group interventions, has not been sufficiently examined. Methods: This systematic review included randomly controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention/model delivered in both F2F and online formats. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. Results: The search yielded 15 RCTs. Effect sizes ranged from small to exceptionally large. Between-condition effect sizes yielded nonsignificant differences in effectiveness except for three studies that reported superior effectiveness in outcomes for F2F interventions. High heterogeneity was found where only two studies integrated rigorous designs, thus limiting opportunity for a meta-analysis evaluation. Conclusions: Most studies showed comparable outcomes in both F2F and online modalities. However, given the heterogeneity of samples and outcomes, it is premature to conclude that online treatment is as effective as F2F for all challenges and populations.","PeriodicalId":47993,"journal":{"name":"Research on Social Work Practice","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy of Online vs. Face-to-Face Group Interventions: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Maryam Rafieifar, Alice Schmidt Hanbidge, Sloan Bruan Lorenzini, Mark J. Macgowan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10497315241236966\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Online group-based interventions are widely adopted, but their efficacy, when compared with similar face-to-face (F2F) psychosocial group interventions, has not been sufficiently examined. Methods: This systematic review included randomly controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention/model delivered in both F2F and online formats. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. Results: The search yielded 15 RCTs. Effect sizes ranged from small to exceptionally large. Between-condition effect sizes yielded nonsignificant differences in effectiveness except for three studies that reported superior effectiveness in outcomes for F2F interventions. High heterogeneity was found where only two studies integrated rigorous designs, thus limiting opportunity for a meta-analysis evaluation. Conclusions: Most studies showed comparable outcomes in both F2F and online modalities. However, given the heterogeneity of samples and outcomes, it is premature to conclude that online treatment is as effective as F2F for all challenges and populations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research on Social Work Practice\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research on Social Work Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241236966\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research on Social Work Practice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315241236966","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：基于在线小组的干预措施已被广泛采用，但与类似的面对面（F2F）社会心理小组干预措施相比，其有效性尚未得到充分研究。研究方法本系统性综述包括随机对照试验（RCT），这些试验比较了以面对面和在线两种形式提供的干预/模式。综述遵循 PRISMA 指南，并在 PROSPERO 注册。结果搜索结果显示有 15 项 RCT。效果大小从很小到特别大不等。除了三项研究报告了 F2F 干预的卓越效果外，其他条件之间的效果大小差异并不显著。由于只有两项研究采用了严格的设计，因此发现了高度的异质性，从而限制了进行荟萃分析评估的机会。结论大多数研究显示，F2F 和在线模式的效果相当。然而，鉴于样本和结果的异质性，得出在线治疗对所有挑战和人群都与面对面治疗一样有效的结论还为时过早。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparative Efficacy of Online vs. Face-to-Face Group Interventions: A Systematic Review

Purpose: Online group-based interventions are widely adopted, but their efficacy, when compared with similar face-to-face (F2F) psychosocial group interventions, has not been sufficiently examined. Methods: This systematic review included randomly controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention/model delivered in both F2F and online formats. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. Results: The search yielded 15 RCTs. Effect sizes ranged from small to exceptionally large. Between-condition effect sizes yielded nonsignificant differences in effectiveness except for three studies that reported superior effectiveness in outcomes for F2F interventions. High heterogeneity was found where only two studies integrated rigorous designs, thus limiting opportunity for a meta-analysis evaluation. Conclusions: Most studies showed comparable outcomes in both F2F and online modalities. However, given the heterogeneity of samples and outcomes, it is premature to conclude that online treatment is as effective as F2F for all challenges and populations.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Research on Social Work Practice SOCIAL WORK-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

11.10%

发文量

105

期刊介绍： Research on Social Work Practice, sponsored by the Society for Social Work and Research, is a disciplinary journal devoted to the publication of empirical research concerning the methods and outcomes of social work practice. Social work practice is broadly interpreted to refer to the application of intentionally designed social work intervention programs to problems of societal and/or interpersonal importance, including behavior analysis or psychotherapy involving individuals; case management; practice involving couples, families, and small groups; community practice education; and the development, implementation, and evaluation of social policies.