RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a widely used treatment for depression. However, limited resource availability poses several barriers to patients seeking access to care, including lengthy wait times and geographical limitations. This has prompted health care services to introduce electronically delivered CBT (eCBT) to facilitate access. Although previous reviews have compared the effects of eCBT to face-to-face CBT, there is an overall lack of adequately powered and up-to-date evidence in the literature to provide a reliable comparison between the two modes of administration. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of eCBT compared to face-to-face CBT through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: To be eligible for this review, studies needed to be randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of any form of eCBT compared to face-to-face CBT. These encompassed studies evaluating a wide range of outcomes including severity of symptoms, adverse outcomes, clinically relevant outcomes, global functionality, participant satisfaction, quality of life, and affordability. There were no restrictions on participant age or sex.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psych Info, Cochrane CENTRAL and CINAHL databases from inception to February 20th, 2020 using a comprehensive search strategy. All stages of literature screening and data extraction were completed independently in duplicate. Data extraction and risk of bias analyses, including GRADE ratings, were conducted on studies meeting inclusion criteria. Qualitative measures are reported in a narrative summary. We pooled quantitative data in meta-analyses to provide an estimated summary effect. This review adheres to PRISMA reporting guidelines. FINDINGS: In total, we included 17 studies in our analyses. Our results demonstrated that eCBT was more effective than face-to-face CBT at reducing depression symptom severity (Standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.72, -0.74; GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). There were no significant differences between the two interventions on participant satisfaction (SMD 0.13 95%; CI -0.32, 0.59; GRADE: low quality of evidence). One RCT reported eCBT to be less costly than face-to-face CBT (GRADE: low quality of evidence). Results did not differ when stratified by subgroups such as participant age and study location. INTERPRETATION: Although we found eCBT to have moderate evidence of effectiveness in reducing symptoms of depression, high heterogeneity among studies precludes definitive conclusions for all outcomes. With the current reliance and accessibility of technology to increasing number of people worldwide, serious consideration in utilizing technology should be given to maximize accessibility for depression treatments. Our results found eCBT is at least as effective as face to face CBT, thus eCBT should be offered if preferred by patients and therapists. FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain (ALBP) is a common clinical complaint that can last anywhere from 24 hours to 12 weeks. In recent years, there has been an opioid epidemic which is linked to the increased availability of prescription opioids. Though guidelines recommend that in the treatment of ALBP, opioids should be used when other treatments fail, we have seen an increase in opioid prescriptions for ALBP. With this crisis, it is important to examine if there are any adverse outcomes associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP. OBJECTIVE: We aim to review the published literature to examine the adverse outcomes associated with opioid use for ALBP. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis in accordance with our published protocol and PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: The review was conducted at McMaster University. METHODS: Various electronic databases for articles published from inception to September 30, 2017, inclusive. Both randomized clinical trials and observational studies on the impact of opioid use in ALBP in the adult population were included. Eight pairs of independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality. The identified articles were assessed for risk of bias using sensitivity analysis. Trials with comparative outcomes were reported in a meta-analysis using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: A total of 13,889 studies were initially screened for the review and a total of 4 studies were included in the full review, of which 2 studies were meta-analyzed. Our results showed that prescribing opioids for ALBP was significantly associated with long-term continued opioid use (1.57, 95% CI, 1.06-2.33). There was no significant association found between unemployment duration and prescribing opioids for ALBP (3.54, 95% CI, -7.57 to 14.66). LIMITATIONS: Due to the limited number of studies that considered unemployment, only an unpooled analysis was conducted. Among the included studies there was both statistical and clinical heterogeneity due to differences in methodology, study design, risk of selection or performance bias. Most of the studies had an unclear or high risk of bias and poorly defined side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of literature examining long-term adverse outcomes associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP, no definitive conclusions can be made. However, with the literature available, there does seem to be risk associated with prescribing opioids for ALBP so there is a great need to conduct further investigations examining these adverse outcomes for ALBP patients. KEY WORDS: Acute low back pain, opioids, prescriptions, low back pain, long-term use, opioid use disorder.
