精神健康障碍的数字健康干预:随机对照试验荟萃分析综述

IF 23.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Cristina Crocamo, Dario Palpella, Daniele Cavaleri, Christian Nasti, Susanna Piacenti, Pietro Morello, Giada Lauria, Oliviero Villa, Ilaria Riboldi, Francesco Bartoli, John Torous, Giuseppe Carrà
{"title":"精神健康障碍的数字健康干预:随机对照试验荟萃分析综述","authors":"Cristina Crocamo, Dario Palpella, Daniele Cavaleri, Christian Nasti, Susanna Piacenti, Pietro Morello, Giada Lauria, Oliviero Villa, Ilaria Riboldi, Francesco Bartoli, John Torous, Giuseppe Carrà","doi":"10.1016/j.landig.2025.100878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital health interventions (DHIs) show promise for the treatment of mental health disorders. However, existing meta-analytical research is methodologically heterogeneous, with studies including a mix of clinical, non-clinical, and transdiagnostic populations, hindering a comprehensive understanding of DHI effectiveness. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of DHIs for specific mental health disorders and evaluating the quality of evidence. We searched three public electronic databases from inception to February, 2024 and included 16 studies. DHIs were effective compared with active interventions for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, major depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Notable treatment effects compared with a waiting list were also observed for specific phobias, generalised anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bulimia nervosa. Certainty of evidence was rated as very low or low in most cases, except for generalised anxiety disorder-related outcomes, which showed a moderate rating. To integrate DHIs into clinical practice, further high-quality studies with clearly defined target populations and robust comparators are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48534,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Digital Health","volume":" ","pages":"100878"},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital health interventions for mental health disorders: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Cristina Crocamo, Dario Palpella, Daniele Cavaleri, Christian Nasti, Susanna Piacenti, Pietro Morello, Giada Lauria, Oliviero Villa, Ilaria Riboldi, Francesco Bartoli, John Torous, Giuseppe Carrà\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.landig.2025.100878\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Digital health interventions (DHIs) show promise for the treatment of mental health disorders. However, existing meta-analytical research is methodologically heterogeneous, with studies including a mix of clinical, non-clinical, and transdiagnostic populations, hindering a comprehensive understanding of DHI effectiveness. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of DHIs for specific mental health disorders and evaluating the quality of evidence. We searched three public electronic databases from inception to February, 2024 and included 16 studies. DHIs were effective compared with active interventions for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, major depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Notable treatment effects compared with a waiting list were also observed for specific phobias, generalised anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bulimia nervosa. Certainty of evidence was rated as very low or low in most cases, except for generalised anxiety disorder-related outcomes, which showed a moderate rating. To integrate DHIs into clinical practice, further high-quality studies with clearly defined target populations and robust comparators are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Digital Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100878\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":23.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Digital Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landig.2025.100878\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Digital Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landig.2025.100878","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数字健康干预措施(DHIs)显示出治疗精神健康障碍的希望。然而,现有的荟萃分析研究在方法上是异质的,包括临床、非临床和经诊断人群的混合研究,阻碍了对DHI有效性的全面理解。因此,我们对调查DHIs对特定精神健康障碍的有效性并评估证据质量的随机对照试验的荟萃分析进行了总括性回顾。我们检索了三个公共电子数据库,从成立到2024年2月,包括16项研究。与积极干预相比,DHIs对精神分裂症谱系障碍、重度抑郁症、社交焦虑障碍和恐慌障碍的治疗效果更好。特异性恐惧症、广泛性焦虑症、强迫症、创伤后应激障碍和神经性贪食症的治疗效果也明显优于等候名单。在大多数情况下,证据的确定性被评为非常低或低,但广泛性焦虑障碍相关的结果显示中等评级。为了将DHIs纳入临床实践,需要进一步的高质量研究,明确定义目标人群和强大的比较物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Digital health interventions for mental health disorders: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Digital health interventions (DHIs) show promise for the treatment of mental health disorders. However, existing meta-analytical research is methodologically heterogeneous, with studies including a mix of clinical, non-clinical, and transdiagnostic populations, hindering a comprehensive understanding of DHI effectiveness. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of DHIs for specific mental health disorders and evaluating the quality of evidence. We searched three public electronic databases from inception to February, 2024 and included 16 studies. DHIs were effective compared with active interventions for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, major depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Notable treatment effects compared with a waiting list were also observed for specific phobias, generalised anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bulimia nervosa. Certainty of evidence was rated as very low or low in most cases, except for generalised anxiety disorder-related outcomes, which showed a moderate rating. To integrate DHIs into clinical practice, further high-quality studies with clearly defined target populations and robust comparators are needed.

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
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Digital Health publishes important, innovative, and practice-changing research on any topic connected with digital technology in clinical medicine, public health, and global health. The journal’s open access content crosses subject boundaries, building bridges between health professionals and researchers.By bringing together the most important advances in this multidisciplinary field,The Lancet Digital Health is the most prominent publishing venue in digital health. We publish a range of content types including Articles,Review, Comment, and Correspondence, contributing to promoting digital technologies in health practice worldwide.
×
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