Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
JMIR Ment Health ; 9(3): e31780, 2022 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1770896

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are a leading cause of distress and disability worldwide. To meet patient demand, there is a need for increased access to high-quality, evidence-based mental health care. Telehealth has become well established in the treatment of illnesses, including mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a robust evidence synthesis to assess whether there is evidence of differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for the management of less common mental and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. METHODS: In this systematic review, we included randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth (telephone, video, or both) versus the face-to-face delivery of psychotherapy for less common mental health conditions and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. The psychotherapy delivered had to be comparable between the telehealth and face-to-face groups, and it had to be delivered by general practitioners, primary care nurses, or allied health staff (such as psychologists and counselors). Patient (symptom severity, overall improvement in psychological symptoms, and function), process (working alliance and client satisfaction), and financial (cost) outcomes were included. RESULTS: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials were included, with 931 patients in aggregate; therapies included cognitive behavioral and family therapies delivered in populations encompassing addiction disorders, eating disorders, childhood mental health problems, and chronic conditions. Telehealth was delivered by video in 7 trials, by telephone in 3 trials, and by both in 1 trial, and the delivery mode was unclear in 1 trial. The risk of bias for the 12 trials was low or unclear for most domains, except for the lack of the blinding of participants, owing to the nature of the comparison. There were no significant differences in symptom severity between telehealth and face-to-face therapy immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27) or at any other follow-up time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences immediately after treatment between telehealth and face-to-face care delivery on any of the other outcomes meta-analyzed, including overall improvement (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.39), function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.42), working alliance client (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.57), working alliance therapist (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.59), and client satisfaction (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.53), or at any other time point (3, 6, and 12 months). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to effectively treating less common mental health conditions and physical conditions requiring psychological support, there is insufficient evidence of a difference between psychotherapy delivered via telehealth and the same therapy delivered face-to-face. However, there was no includable evidence in this review for some serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and further high-quality research is needed to determine whether telehealth is a viable, equivalent treatment option for these conditions.

2.
J Telemed Telecare ; : 1357633X211053738, 2021 Dec 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551117

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, it is estimated that 264 million people meet the diagnostic criteria for anxiety conditions. Effective treatment regimens consist of cognitive and behavioural therapies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment delivery relied heavily on telemedicine technologies which enabled remote consultation with patients via phone or video platforms. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise randomised controlled trials comparing telehealth to face-to-face delivery of care to individuals of any age or gender, diagnosed with anxiety disorders, and disorders with anxiety features. METHODS: To conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three electronic databases, clinical trial registries and citing-cited references of included studies. RESULTS: A total of five small randomised controlled trials were includable; telehealth was conducted by video in three studies, and by telephone in two. The risk of bias for the 5 studies was low to moderate for most domains. Outcomes related to anxiety, depression symptom severity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, function, working alliance, and satisfaction were comparable between the two modes of delivery at each follow-up time point (immediately post-intervention, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months), with no significant differences reported (p > 0.05). None of the trials reported on the costs of telehealth compared to face-to-face care. DISCUSSION: For effectively treating anxiety and related conditions, interventions delivered by telehealth appear to be as effective as the same therapy delivered in-person. However, further high-quality trials are warranted to determine the effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for the management of a wider range of anxiety disorders and treatments.

3.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e046175, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363534

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.


Subject(s)
Hand Hygiene , Influenza, Human , Respiratory Tract Infections , Virus Diseases , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Soaps
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e044364, 2021 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1095183

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify, appraise and synthesise studies evaluating the downsides of wearing face masks in any setting. We also discuss potential strategies to mitigate these downsides. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and EuropePMC were searched (inception-18 May 2020), and clinical registries were searched via CENTRAL. We also did a forward-backward citation search of the included studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing face mask use to any active intervention or to control. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were compliance, discomforts, harms and adverse events of wearing face masks. RESULTS: We screened 5471 articles, including 37 (40 references); 11 were meta-analysed. For mask wear adherence, 47% (95% CI 25% to 68%, p<0.0001), more people wore face masks in the face mask group compared with control; adherence was significantly higher (26%, 95% CI 8% to 46%, p<0.01) in the surgical/medical mask group than in N95/P2 group. The largest number of studies reported on the discomfort and irritation outcome (20 studies); fewest reported on the misuse of masks, and none reported on mask contamination or risk compensation behaviour. Risk of bias was generally high for blinding of participants and personnel and low for attrition and reporting biases. CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence and effectiveness of face masks. New research on face masks should assess and report the harms and downsides. Urgent research is also needed on methods and designs to mitigate the downsides of face mask wearing, particularly the assessment of possible alternatives. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework website https://osf.io/sa6kf/ (timestamp 20-05-2020).


Subject(s)
Masks , Humans , Masks/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL