Synchronous Web-Based Psychotherapy for Mental Disorders From a Health Quality Perspective: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid changes to health care delivery, including a shift from in-person to digitally delivered psychotherapy. While these changes helped ensure timely psychotherapy provision, many concerns exist, including clinical, cultural, practical, privacy, and security issues. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review systematically mapped existing peer-reviewed research on synchronous, therapist-delivered web-based psychotherapy for individuals with a diagnosed mental illness. Data were analyzed through the lens of the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health (AQMH) to assess to what degree this literature addresses key indicators of health care quality. This analysis aided in the identification and organization of knowledge gaps with regard to web-based psychotherapies, highlighting potential disparities between previously prioritized dimensions of care and those requiring further attention. METHODS: This review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We included peer-reviewed primary research studies in the English language investigating synchronous, therapist-delivered remote psychotherapy delivered to adults (aged 18 years and older) with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Statistical Classification of Diseases diagnosed mental illness. All other citations were excluded. Relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase (OVID), Web of Science: Core Collection (Clarivate), Cochrane Library (Wiley), and Scopus (Elsevier) databases. Databases were searched on March 18, 2021. For every publication that was taken into consideration, the data were charted independently by 2 reviewers, and in the event of a discrepancy, the principal investigator validated the choice of either extractor. Results were thematically described according to the 6 AQMH dimensions: acceptability, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. RESULTS: From 13,209 publications, 48 articles were included, largely from North American studies. Most studies measured treatment effectiveness (n=48, 100%) and acceptability (n=29, 60%) health quality dimensions. Over 80% (40/48) of studies investigated either a cognitive or exposure intervention for either posttraumatic stress disorder or a mood or anxiety disorder, generally indicating comparable results to in-person therapy. Safety (n=5, 10%) was measured in fewer studies, while treatment accessibility, appropriateness, and efficiency were not explicitly measured in any study, although these dimensions were mentioned as a future direction, hypothesis, or potential outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In relation to web-based therapist-delivered psychotherapies for those with a diagnosed mental illness, important aspects of health care quality (accessibility, appropriateness, efficiency, and safety) have received little scientific examination, underscoring a need to address these gaps. There are also significant issues related to the generalizability of this literature, including the underrepresentation of many geographic regions, cultures, populations, clinical contexts, and psychotherapy modalities. Qualitative research in underrepresented populations and settings may uncover important patient and contextual factors important for the future implementation of quality web-based psychotherapy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,125 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,028 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».