Live two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder: A 24-week randomized controlled trial.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Kishimoto Taishiro, Kinoshita Shotaro, Kitazawa Momoko, Hishimoto Akitoyo, Asami Takeshi, Suda Akira, Bun Shogyoku, Kikuchi Toshiaki, Sado Mitsuhiro, Takamiya Akihiro, Mimura Masaru, Sato Yasunori, Takemura Ryo, Nagashima Kengo, Nakamae Takashi, Abe Yoshinari, Kanazawa Tetsufumi, Kawabata Yasuo, Tomita Hiroaki, Abe Koichi, Hongo Seiji, Kimura Hiroshi, Sato Aiko, Kida Hisashi, Sakuma Kei, Funayama Michitaka, Sugiyama Naoya, Hino Kousuke, Amagai Toru, Takamiya Maki, Kodama Hideyuki, Goto Kenichi, Fujiwara Shuichiro, Kaiya Hisanobu, Nagao Kiichiro, J‐PROTECT collaborators
Аннотация
METHODS: This randomized controlled trial compared two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder in the subacute/maintenance phase during a 24-week period. Adult patients with the above-mentioned disorders were allocated to either a two-way video group (≥50% video sessions) or a face-to-face group (100% in-person sessions) and received standard treatment covered by public medical insurance. The primary outcome was the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS) score. Secondary outcomes included all-cause discontinuation, working alliance, adverse events, and the severity rating scales for each disorder.
RESULTS: A total of 199 patients participated in this study. After 24 weeks of treatment, two-way video treatment was found to be noninferior to face-to-face treatment regarding SF-36 MCS score (48.50 vs 46.68, respectively; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding most secondary end points, including all-cause discontinuation, treatment efficacy, and satisfaction.
CONCLUSION: Two-way video treatment using smartphones and other devices, was noninferior to face-to-face treatment in real-world clinical settings. Modern telemedicine, easily accessible from home, can be used as a form of health care.