COVID-19 public health proscriptions have created severe if temporary, barriers to accessing face-to-face psychotherapy across the world. As disruptive as these are, they come on top of more long-standing barriers to getting psychotherapy faced by millions in need. eHealth interventions offer an avenue for redressing both types of barriers, but evidence about their efficacy remains a concern. This review of reviews and meta-analyses outlines the strength of evidence and effect sizes for guided and unguided approaches to eHealth interventions targeting common problems in psychotherapy (i.e., depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and general well-being). After a comprehensive search, a total of 65 reviews and meta-analyses were identified and evaluated for treatment effects, moderators, acceptability, and attrition. Findings show eHealth is acceptable and effective at improving depression, anxiety, alcohol-related problems, and general mental health compared to waitlist, and can even offer benefit as an adjunct to traditional psychotherapy. Mixed evidence was found when comparing guided versus unguided interventions as well as the strength of benefit relative to active controls and the degree to which these approaches are associated with attrition. eHealth interventions have the potential to be an effective tool for redressing both new and old psychotherapy access barriers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
ANTECEDENTES: Varios paquetes de terapia de comportamiento cognitivo informatizado (CCBT) están ahora disponibles para el tratamiento de la depresión leve a moderada, con o sin ansiedad. Estos han sido por lo general han revisado junto CCBT para una amplia gama de problemas psicológicos. En este sentido, destacar los resultados de estas revisiones de los trastornos mentales más comunes, la depresión leve a moderada. El objetivo de este trabajo es evaluar la calidad de las revisiones existentes y permitir comparaciones confiables de paquetes informáticos alternativos para el mismo grupo de pacientes.
Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda exhaustiva y análisis de las revisiones de la eficacia de CCBT publicados entre 1999 y febrero de 2011.
RESULTADOS: La búsqueda arrojó doce revisiones sistemáticas de diez estudios que abarcan depresión. Su metodología se aprecia y los resultados seleccionados se presentan aquí.
CONCLUSIONES: El meta-análisis apoya la eficacia de CCBT para el tratamiento de la depresión, sin embargo, hay poca información sobre los diferentes enfoques, cuya rentabilidad relativa está por demostrar. Se hacen sugerencias para futuros estudios en este campo.
COVID-19 public health proscriptions have created severe if temporary, barriers to accessing face-to-face psychotherapy across the world. As disruptive as these are, they come on top of more long-standing barriers to getting psychotherapy faced by millions in need. eHealth interventions offer an avenue for redressing both types of barriers, but evidence about their efficacy remains a concern. This review of reviews and meta-analyses outlines the strength of evidence and effect sizes for guided and unguided approaches to eHealth interventions targeting common problems in psychotherapy (i.e., depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and general well-being). After a comprehensive search, a total of 65 reviews and meta-analyses were identified and evaluated for treatment effects, moderators, acceptability, and attrition. Findings show eHealth is acceptable and effective at improving depression, anxiety, alcohol-related problems, and general mental health compared to waitlist, and can even offer benefit as an adjunct to traditional psychotherapy. Mixed evidence was found when comparing guided versus unguided interventions as well as the strength of benefit relative to active controls and the degree to which these approaches are associated with attrition. eHealth interventions have the potential to be an effective tool for redressing both new and old psychotherapy access barriers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
