Association between expectations and clinical outcomes in online v. face-to-face therapy - an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Online treatments are increasing in number and are currently available for a wide range of clinical problems. To date little is known about the role of treatment expectations and other placebo-like mechanisms in online settings compared to traditional face-to-face treatment. To address this knowledge gap, we analyzed individual participant data from randomized clinical trials that compared online and face-to-face psychological interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid) were last searched on 2 February 2021. Randomized clinical trials of therapist guided online v. face-to-face psychological interventions for psychiatric or somatic conditions using a randomized controlled design were included. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies were independently screened by multiple observers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Authors of the matching trials were contacted for individual participant data. Ratings from the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire and the primary outcome measure from each trial were used to estimate the association between expectation ratings and treatment outcomes in online v. face-to-face interventions, using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 7045 screened studies, 62 full-text articles were retrieved whereof six studies fulfilled the criteria and provided individual participant data (n = 491). Overall, CEQ ratings predicted clinical outcomes (ß = 0.27) at end of treatment with no moderating effect of treatment modality (online v. face-to-face). CONCLUSIONS: Online treatment appears to be equally susceptible to expectancy effects as face-to-face therapy. This furthers our understanding of the importance of placebo-like factors in online treatment and may aid the improvement of healthcare in online settings.

Tinnitus and tinnitus disorder: Theoretical and operational definitions (an international multidisciplinary proposal).

As for hypertension, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders with particular symptoms, a commonly accepted and unambiguous definition provides a common ground for researchers and clinicians to study and treat the problem. The WHO's ICD11 definition only mentions tinnitus as a nonspecific symptom of a hearing disorder, but not as a clinical entity in its own right, and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-V doesn't mention tinnitus at all. Here we propose that the tinnitus without and with associated suffering should be differentiated by distinct terms: "Tinnitus" for the former and "Tinnitus Disorder" for the latter. The proposed definition then becomes "Tinnitus is the conscious awareness of a tonal or composite noise for which there is no identifiable corresponding external acoustic source, which becomes Tinnitus Disorder "when associated with emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, and/or autonomic arousal, leading to behavioural changes and functional disability.". In other words "Tinnitus" describes the auditory or sensory component, whereas "Tinnitus Disorder" reflects the auditory component and the associated suffering. Whereas acute tinnitus may be a symptom secondary to a trauma or disease, chronic tinnitus may be considered a primary disorder in its own right. If adopted, this will advance the recognition of tinnitus disorder as a primary health condition in its own right. The capacity to measure the incidence, prevalence, and impact will help in identification of human, financial, and educational needs required to address acute tinnitus as a symptom but chronic tinnitus as a disorder.