Gender Differences in Perceived Working Conditions of General Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic-a Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed gender-specific differences between general practitioners in adapting to the posed challenges. As primary care workforce is becoming increasingly female, in many countries, it is essential to take a closer look at gender-specific influences when the global health care system is confronted with a crisis. OBJECTIVE: To explore gender-specific differences in the perceived working conditions and gender-specific differences in challenges facing GPs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. DESIGN: Online survey in seven countries. PARTICIPANTS: 2,602 GPs from seven countries (Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia). Of the respondents, 44.4% (n = 1,155) were women. MAIN MEASURES: Online survey. We focused on gender-specific differences in general practitioners' perceptions of working conditions at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. KEY RESULTS: Female GPs rated their skills and self-confidence significantly lower than male GPs (f: 7.1, 95%CI: 6.9-7.3 vs. m: 7.6, 95%CI 7.4-7.8; p < .001), and their perceived risk (concerned about becoming infected or infecting others) higher than men (f: 5.7, 95%CI: 5.4-6.0 vs. m: 5.1, 95%CI: 4.8-5.5; p = .011). Among female GPs, low self-confidence in the treatment of COVID-19 patients appear to be common. Results were similar in all of the participating countries. CONCLUSIONS: Female and male GPs differed in terms of their self-confidence when dealing with COVID-19-related issues and their perceptions of the risks arising from the pandemic. To ensure optimal medical care, it is important that GPs realistically assess their own abilities and overall risk.

The effectiveness of parasympathomimetics for treating underactive bladder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Biological rationale suggests that parasympathomimetics (cholinergic receptor stimulating agents) could be beneficial for patients with underactive bladder. However, no systematic review with meta-analysis addressing potential benefits or adverse effects exists. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness, both benefits and harms, of using parasympathomimetics for the treatment of underactive bladder. METHODS: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, and searches undertaken in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL, including randomized and non-randomized controlled trials of patients with underactive bladder, comparing parasympathomimetic to placebo, no treatment, or other pharmaceuticals. Risk ratios, odds ratios, and mean differences were calculated. RESULTS: Twelve trials with 3024 participants were included. There was a significant difference between parasympathomimetics and comparators (favoring parasympathomimetics) in the number of patients with urinary retention (risk ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.98, p = 0.04, low quality of evidence). There was no difference in mean postvoid volume overall (MD -41.4 ml, 95% CI -92.0 to 9.1, p = 0.11, low quality of evidence). There was a significant difference at up to 1 week post-intervention, favoring parasympathomimetics (MD -77.5 ml, 95% CI -90.9 to -64.1, p < 0.001, low quality of evidence), but no difference at 1 month post-intervention. There was no difference in adverse events (odds ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.62-2.28, p = 0.6, moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting the use of parasympathomimetics is of low quality, with relatively short follow-up durations. Overall, it is not possible to draw clear evidence-based conclusions from the current literature, presenting the use of parasympathomimetics for treating underactive bladder as a key area that requires future well-controlled clinical trials.

A Community Jury on initiating weight management conversations in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients attending general practice should be screened for excess weight, and provided with weight management advice. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to elicit the views of people with overweight and obesity about the role of GPs in initiating conversations about weight management. METHODS: Participants with a body mass index ≥25 were recruited from a region in Australia to take part in a Community Jury. Over 2 days, participants (n = 11) deliberated on two interconnected questions: 'Should GPs initiate discussions about weight management?' And 'if so, when: (a) opportunistically, (b) in the context of disease prevention, (c) in the context of disease management or (d) other?' The jury deliberations were analysed qualitatively to elicit their views and recommendations. RESULTS: The jury concluded GPs should be discussing weight management, but within the broader context of general health. The jury were divided about the utility of screening. Jurors felt GPs should initiate the conversation if directly relevant for disease prevention or management, otherwise GPs should provide opportunities for patients to consent to the issue being raised. CONCLUSION: The jury's verdict suggests informed people affected by overweight and obesity believe GPs should discuss weight management with their patients. GPs should feel reassured that discussions are likely to be welcomed by patients, particularly if embedded within a more holistic focus on person-centred care. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public took part in the conduct of this study as jurors, but were not involved in the design, analysis or write-up.

Exercise versus no exercise for the occurrence, severity, and duration of acute respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) last for less than 30 days and are the most common acute diseases affecting people. Exercise has been shown to improve health generally, but it is uncertain whether exercise may be effective in reducing the occurrence, severity, and duration of ARIs. This is an update of our review published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise for altering the occurrence, severity, or duration of acute respiratory infections. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to March week 1, 2020), Embase (1974 to 05 March 2020), CINAHL (1981 to 05 March 2020), LILACS (1982 to 05 March 2020), SPORTDiscus (1985 to 05 March 2020), PEDro (searched 05 March 2020), OTseeker (searched 05 March 2020), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 05 March 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (method of allocation that is not truly random, e.g. based on date of birth, medical record number) of exercise for ARIs in the general population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using a standard form. One review author entered data, which a second review author checked. We contacted trial authors to request missing data. There were sufficient differences in the populations trialed and in the nature of the interventions to use the random-effects model (which makes fewer assumptions than the fixed-effect model) in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included three new trials for this update (473 participants) for a total of 14 trials involving 1377 adults, published between 1990 and 2018. Nine trials were conducted in the USA, and one each in Brazil, Canada, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. Sample sizes ranged from 16 to 419 participants, aged from 18 to 85 years. The proportion of female participants ranged from 52% to 100%. Follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 36 weeks (median = 12 weeks). Moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (walking, bicycling, treadmill, or a combination) was evaluated in 11 trials, and was most commonly prescribed at least three times a week for 30 to 45 minutes. There was no difference between exercise and no exercise in the number of ARI episodes per person per year (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.30; 4 trials; 514 participants; low-certainty evidence); proportion of participants who experienced at least one ARI over the study period (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.08; 5 trials; 520 participants; low-certainty evidence); and the number of symptom days per episode of illness (mean difference (MD) -0.44 day, 95% CI -2.33 to 1.46; 6 trials; 557 participants; low-certainty evidence). Exercise reduced the severity of ARI symptoms measured on the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-24) (MD -103.57, 95% CI -198.28 to -8.87; 2 trials; 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and the number of symptom days during follow-up period (MD -2.24 days, 95% CI -3.50 to -0.98; 4 trials; 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Excercise did not have a significant effect on laboratory parameters (blood lymphocytes, salivary secretory immunoglobulin, and neutrophils), quality of life outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and exercise-related injuries. There was no difference in participant dropout between the intervention and control groups. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded mainly due to limitations in study design and implementation, imprecision, and inconsistency. Seven trials were funded by public agencies; five trials did not report funding; and two trials were funded by private companies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise did not reduce the number of ARI episodes, proportion of participants experiencing at least one ARI during the study, or the number of symptom days per episode of illness. However, exercise reduced the severity of ARI symptoms (two studies) and the number of symptom days during the study follow-up period (four studies). Small study size, risk of bias, and heterogeneity in the populations studied contributed to the uncertainty of the findings. Larger trials that are designed to avoid risk of bias associated with participant selection, blinding of outcomes assessors, and with adequate reporting of all outcomes proposed for measurement in trials, would help to provide more robust evidence.

Probiotics for preventing acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM), or acute middle ear infection, is one of the most frequently occurring childhood diseases, and the most common reason given for prescribing antibiotics in this age group. Guidelines often recommend antibiotics as first-line treatment for severe AOM. However, antibiotics also lead to antibiotic resistance, so preventing episodes of AOM is an urgent priority. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of probiotics to prevent the occurrence and reduce the severity of acute otitis media in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three other databases (October 2018), two trial registers (October 2018), and conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis (August 2018). We did not apply any language, publication date, or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of children (aged up to 18 years), comparing probiotics with placebo, usual care, or no probiotic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion and risk of bias of the included trials, and extracted data using pre-piloted data extraction forms. We analysed dichotomous data as either risk ratio (RR) or odds ratios (OR) and continuous data as mean differences (MD). MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs involving 3488 children, of which 16 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. Of the 16 RCTs that reported the mean age of children, mean age overall was 2.4 years; in 4 RCTs the mean age of children participating in the trial was less than 1 year old; in 2 RCTs the mean age was between 1 and 2 years old; and in 10 RCTs the mean age was older than 2 years. Probiotic strains evaluated by the trials varied, with 11 of the included RCTs evaluating Lactobacillus-containing probiotics, and six RCTs evaluating Streptococcus-containing probiotics.The proportion of children (i.e. the number of children in each group) experiencing one or more episodes of AOM during the treatment was lower for those taking probiotics (RR 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.93; 16 trials; 2961 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; moderate-certainty evidence).Post hoc subgroup analysis found that among children not prone to otitis media, a lower proportion of children receiving probiotics experienced AOM (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84; 11 trials; 2227 participants; NNTB = 9; moderate-certainty evidence). However, among children who were otitis prone, there was no difference between probiotic and comparator groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11; 5 trials; 734 participants; high-certainty evidence). The test for subgroup differences was significant (P = 0.007).None of the included trials reported on the severity of AOM.The proportion of children experiencing adverse events did not differ between the probiotic and comparator groups (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.94; 4 trials; 395 participants; low-certainty evidence).Probiotics decreased the proportion of children taking antibiotics for any infection (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 8 trials; 1768 participants; NNTB = 8; moderate-certainty evidence). Test for subgroup differences (use of antibiotic specifically for AOM, use of antibiotic for infections other than AOM) was not significant.There was no difference in the mean number of school days lost (MD -0.95, 95% CI -2.47 to 0.57; 5 trials; 1280 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between groups in the level of compliance in taking the intervention (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 5 trials; 990 participants).Probiotics decreased the proportion of children having other infections (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; 11 trials; 3610 participants; NNTB = 12; moderate-certainty evidence). Test for subgroup differences (acute respiratory infections, gastrointestinal infections) was not significant.Probiotic strains trialled and their dose, frequency, and duration of administration varied considerably across studies, which likely contributed to the substantial levels of heterogeneity. Sensitivity testing of funnel plots did not reveal publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics may prevent AOM in children not prone to AOM, but the inconsistency of the subgroup analyses suggests caution in interpreting these results. Probiotics decreased the proportion of children taking antibiotics for any infection. The proportion of children experiencing adverse events did not differ between the probiotic and comparator groups. The optimal strain, duration, frequency, and timing of probiotic administration still needs to be established.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Telehealth versus face-to-face delivery of speech language pathology services: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for the provision of speech language pathology (SLP) services via telehealth. Therefore, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth to face-to-face provision of SLP services. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane, clinical trial registries, and conducted a citation analysis to identify trials. We included randomized trials comparing similar care delivered live via telehealth (phone or video), to face-to-face. Primary outcomes included: % syllables stuttered (%SS) (for individuals who stutter); change in sound pressure levels monologue (for individuals with Parkinson's disease); and key function scores (for other areas). Where data were sufficient, mean differences were calculated. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were included; eight evaluated video and one evaluated phone telehealth. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear, excepting blinding. There were no significant differences at any time-point up to 18 months for %SS (mean difference, MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.6, p = 0.70). For people with Parkinson's disease, there was no difference between groups in change in sound pressure levels (monologue) (MD 0.6, 95% CI -1.2 to 2.5, p = 0.49). Four trials investigated interventions for speech sound disorder, voice disorder and post-stroke dysphagia and aphasia; they found no differences between telehealth service delivery and face-to-face delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that the telehealth provision of SLP services may be a viable alternative to their provision face-to-face, particularly to people who stutter and people with Parkinson's disease. The key limitation is the small number of randomized controlled trials, as well as evidence on the quality of life, well-being and satisfaction and economic outcomes.

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts.

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.

"No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence": A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes.

We created a petition for a national inquiry into the Australian system of research ethics and governance, to inform the politicians about the problems with the existing system. We analyzed the reasons that signatories offered for why signing the petition was important to them. A total of 409 comments (by 805 signatories) focused on five major themes: (1) views on previous changes to the system of research ethics and governance; (2) drawbacks of the existing system; (3) suggested changes to the system; (4) anticipated impacts of changing the system; and (5) miscellaneous/other comments. Comments ranged from several words to over 400 words in length, and most often focused on the procedural aspects, and commented on theme 2: drawbacks of the existing system.

The effectiveness of telehealth versus face-to face interventions for anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, it is estimated that 264 million people meet the diagnostic criteria for anxiety conditions. Effective treatment regimens consist of cognitive and behavioural therapies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment delivery relied heavily on telemedicine technologies which enabled remote consultation with patients via phone or video platforms. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise randomised controlled trials comparing telehealth to face-to-face delivery of care to individuals of any age or gender, diagnosed with anxiety disorders, and disorders with anxiety features. METHODS: To conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three electronic databases, clinical trial registries and citing-cited references of included studies. RESULTS: A total of five small randomised controlled trials were includable; telehealth was conducted by video in three studies, and by telephone in two. The risk of bias for the 5 studies was low to moderate for most domains. Outcomes related to anxiety, depression symptom severity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, function, working alliance, and satisfaction were comparable between the two modes of delivery at each follow-up time point (immediately post-intervention, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months), with no significant differences reported (p > 0.05). None of the trials reported on the costs of telehealth compared to face-to-face care. DISCUSSION: For effectively treating anxiety and related conditions, interventions delivered by telehealth appear to be as effective as the same therapy delivered in-person. However, further high-quality trials are warranted to determine the effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for the management of a wider range of anxiety disorders and treatments.