Psychological Interventions Are More Effective than Educational Interventions at Improving Atopic Dermatitis Severity: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined which educational and/or psychological interventions were most effective in atopic dermatitis (AD). A systematic review of published studies evaluated the effectiveness of educational and/or psychological interventions in MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, LILACS, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Taiwan Electronic Periodical Services, and CiNii. Two reviewers conducted title/abstract, full-text review, and data extraction. Twenty-four prospective studies were included, including 20 randomized controlled trials. Educational (4/7 studies) and combined educational and psychological (5/6 studies) interventions reduced AD severity; psychological (10/11 studies) interventions showed the greatest benefit. The most commonly studied psychological intervention was habit reversal training (8/11 studies), which was most frequently incorporated in studies that reduced AD severity (8/10 studies). The most commonly studied educational interventions were education on AD triggers (7/7 studies) and skin care (7/7 studies); they were incorporated in all studies that reduced AD severity. Different psychological and/or educational interventions successfully reduced AD severity, especially habit reversal training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".