Abstract | OBJECTIVE: METHOD: RESULTS: Results indicated marked heterogeneity in study quality. No study met all 14 basic quality standards, and three met 13 criteria. Consistent weaknesses were noted in evaluation of treatment exposure and adherence, rates of follow-up assessment, and conformity to intention-to-treat principles. Studies utilizing weaker comparison conditions (e.g., wait-list controls) had poorer methodological quality scores and were more likely to report effects favoring the computer-assisted condition. CONCLUSIONS: While several well-conducted studies have indicated promising results for computer-assisted therapies, this emerging field has not yet achieved a level of methodological quality equivalent to those required for other evidence-based behavioral therapies or pharmacotherapies. Adoption of more consistent standards for methodological quality in this field, with greater attention to potential adverse events, is needed before computer-assisted therapies are widely disseminated or marketed as evidence based.
|
Authors | Brian D Kiluk, Dawn E Sugarman, Charla Nich, Carly J Gibbons, Steve Martino, Bruce J Rounsaville, Kathleen M Carroll |
Journal | The American journal of psychiatry
(Am J Psychiatry)
Vol. 168
Issue 8
Pg. 790-9
(Aug 2011)
ISSN: 1535-7228 [Electronic] United States |
PMID | 21536689
(Publication Type: Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)
|
Topics |
- Adult
- Evidence-Based Medicine
(standards)
- Humans
- Mental Disorders
(therapy)
- Psychotherapy
(methods)
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- Reference Standards
- Therapy, Computer-Assisted
(methods)
- Treatment Outcome
- United States
|