Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects.

Results: We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07).

Interpretation: Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc).

Author/s:

Sara Zandieh, Seyedeh Maryam Abdollahzadeh, Behnam Sadeghirad, Li Wang, Randi E McCabe, Liam Yao, Briar E Inness, Ananya Pathak, Rachel J Couban, Holly Crandon, Kian Torabiardakani, Peter Bieling, Jason W Busse

Organizational Health Literacy: Quality Improvement Measures with Expert Consensus

Brian Desmarais — Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:21:14 +0000

Date Added:

July 18, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Health Literacy Research and Practice

Publication Date:

July 1, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

e127-e146

URL:

Organizational Health Literacy: Quality Improvement Measures with Expert Consensus

Type:

Practice Management Research Results

DOI (1):

10.3928/24748307-20190503-01

Keywords

health literacy

MeSH

health literacy

quality improvement

delivery of health care

Telecommunications

communication

RPR Commentary: Table 2 lists proposed quality indicators that can be used to assess your organization’s/practice’s efforts to help patients improve their health literacy. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Organizational health literacy (OHL) is the degree to which health care organizations implement strategies to make it easier for patients to understand health information, navigate the health care system, engage in the health care process, and manage their health. Although resources exist to guide OHL-related quality improvement (QI) initiatives, little work has been done to establish measures that organizations can use to monitor their improvement efforts.

OBJECTIVE:

We sought to identify and evaluate existing OHL-related QI measures. To complement prior efforts to develop measures based on patient-reported data, we sought to identify measures computed from clinical, administrative, QI, or staff-reported data. Our goal was to develop a set of measures that experts agree are valuable for informing OHL-related QI activities.

METHODS:

We used four methods to identify relevant measures computed from clinical, administrative, QI, or staff-reported data. We convened a Technical Expert Panel, published a request for measures, conducted a literature review, and interviewed 20 organizations working to improve OHL. From the comprehensive list of measures identified, we selected a set of high-priority measures for review by a second expert panel. Using a modified Delphi review process, panelists rated measures on four evaluation criteria, participated in a teleconference to discuss areas of disagreement among panelists, and rerated all measures.

KEY RESULTS:

Across all methods, we identified 233 measures. Seventy measures underwent Delphi Panel review. For 22 measures, there was consensus among panelists that the measures were useful, meaningful, feasible, and had face validity. Five additional measuresreceived strong ratings for usefulness, meaningfulness, and face validity, but failed to show consensus among panelists regarding feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS:

We identified OHL-related QI measures that have the support of experts in the field. Although additional measure development and testing is recommended, the Consensus OHL QI Measures are appropriate for immediate use. [HLRP: Health LiteracyResearch and Practice. 2019;3(2):e127-e146.].

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:

The health care system is complex. Health care organizations can make things easier for patients by making changes to improve communication and to help patients find their way around, become engaged in the health care process, and manage their health. We identify 22 measures that organizations can use to monitor their efforts to improve communication with and support for patients.

Author/s:

Brega, A.G., Hamer, M.K., Albright, K., Brach, C., Saliba, D., Abbey, D., Gritz, R.M.