Journal of pediatric psychology · 2026
Digital psychological interventions in youth with neurological disorders: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Keevers Yvette, Sivaneswaran Asmitha, Dudeney Joanne, Woldhuis Thomas, Gandy Milena
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Youth with neurological disorders (NDs) face increased risk of psychological difficulties and poor quality of life. This research aimed to systematically review the current state of evidence of digital psychological interventions (DPIs) for improving (1) psychological and/or (2) health-related outcomes in children and adolescents with NDs.
METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in four databases CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and NeuroBITE between inception and 27 November 2024. Included studies were clinical trials (e.g., randomized controlled trials or single-group pre-post designs) investigating the efficacy of a DPI aimed at improving psychological and/or health-related outcomes in youth (<18 years) with NDs. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (RoB2) by two authors. Psychological outcomes included internalizing (e.g., depression), behavioral (e.g., externalizing symptoms), and/or cognitive symptoms (e.g., executive function). Health-related outcomes included physical symptoms (e.g., tics), adherence, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Twenty studies (total participants = 1,508) met criteria and were included. Most studies (k = 10; 50%) focused on youth with traumatic brain injury. Findings revealed mixed trends of efficacy with 12 studies (60%) indicating that DPIs improved outcomes, mainly in behavioral outcomes. Limitations included multiple trials rated as having some concerns (k = 8; 47%) or high risk of bias (k = 5; 29%) due to poor methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS: DPIs may improve psychological and health-related outcomes; however, higher-quality research is needed to explore the potential of DPIs to address the psychological needs of youth with NDs.
METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in four databases CENTRAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and NeuroBITE between inception and 27 November 2024. Included studies were clinical trials (e.g., randomized controlled trials or single-group pre-post designs) investigating the efficacy of a DPI aimed at improving psychological and/or health-related outcomes in youth (<18 years) with NDs. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (RoB2) by two authors. Psychological outcomes included internalizing (e.g., depression), behavioral (e.g., externalizing symptoms), and/or cognitive symptoms (e.g., executive function). Health-related outcomes included physical symptoms (e.g., tics), adherence, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Twenty studies (total participants = 1,508) met criteria and were included. Most studies (k = 10; 50%) focused on youth with traumatic brain injury. Findings revealed mixed trends of efficacy with 12 studies (60%) indicating that DPIs improved outcomes, mainly in behavioral outcomes. Limitations included multiple trials rated as having some concerns (k = 8; 47%) or high risk of bias (k = 5; 29%) due to poor methodological quality.
CONCLUSIONS: DPIs may improve psychological and health-related outcomes; however, higher-quality research is needed to explore the potential of DPIs to address the psychological needs of youth with NDs.