Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2022
Meta-analysis: The Effectiveness of Youth Psychotherapy Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Venturo-Conerly Katherine E, Eisenman Danielle, Wasil Akash R, Singla Daisy R, Weisz John R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Because most youth psychotherapies are developed and tested in high-income countries, relatively little is known about their effectiveness or moderators in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing psychotherapies for youth with multiple psychiatric conditions in LMICs, and we tested candidate moderators.
METHOD: We searched 9 international databases for RCTs of youth psychotherapies in LMICs published through January 2021. The RCTs targeted elevated symptoms of youth anxiety (including posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and obsessive-compulsive disorder), depression, conduct problems, and attention problems. Using robust variance estimation, we estimated the pooled effect sizes (Hedges g) at posttreatment and follow-up for intervention vs control conditions.
RESULTS: Of 5,145 articles identified, 34 articles (with 43 treatment-control comparisons and 4,176 participants) met methodological standards and were included. The overall pooled g with winsorized outliers was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.72-1.29, p < .001) at posttreatment and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.29-1.07, p = .003) at follow-up. Interventions delivered by professional clinicians significantly outperformed those delivered by lay providers (g = 1.59 vs 0.53), but all interventions for conduct problems were delivered by professionals, and the difference for interventions targeting internalizing problems (g = 1.33 vs .53) was not significant. Interventions developed non-locally were more effective if they were not adapted to local contexts than if they were adapted locally (g = 2.31 vs 0.66), highlighting a need for further research on effective adaptations. Significant risk of bias was identified.
CONCLUSION: Overall, pooled effects of youth psychotherapies in LMICs were markedly larger than those in recent comparable non-LMIC meta-analyses, which have shown small-to-medium effects for youth psychotherapies. Findings highlight the potential benefits of youth psychotherapies in LMICs, as well as a need for more RCTs and improved study quality.
STUDY PREREGISTRATION INFORMATION: Effectiveness of Youth Psychotherapy Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; CRD42021240031.
METHOD: We searched 9 international databases for RCTs of youth psychotherapies in LMICs published through January 2021. The RCTs targeted elevated symptoms of youth anxiety (including posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] and obsessive-compulsive disorder), depression, conduct problems, and attention problems. Using robust variance estimation, we estimated the pooled effect sizes (Hedges g) at posttreatment and follow-up for intervention vs control conditions.
RESULTS: Of 5,145 articles identified, 34 articles (with 43 treatment-control comparisons and 4,176 participants) met methodological standards and were included. The overall pooled g with winsorized outliers was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.72-1.29, p < .001) at posttreatment and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.29-1.07, p = .003) at follow-up. Interventions delivered by professional clinicians significantly outperformed those delivered by lay providers (g = 1.59 vs 0.53), but all interventions for conduct problems were delivered by professionals, and the difference for interventions targeting internalizing problems (g = 1.33 vs .53) was not significant. Interventions developed non-locally were more effective if they were not adapted to local contexts than if they were adapted locally (g = 2.31 vs 0.66), highlighting a need for further research on effective adaptations. Significant risk of bias was identified.
CONCLUSION: Overall, pooled effects of youth psychotherapies in LMICs were markedly larger than those in recent comparable non-LMIC meta-analyses, which have shown small-to-medium effects for youth psychotherapies. Findings highlight the potential benefits of youth psychotherapies in LMICs, as well as a need for more RCTs and improved study quality.
STUDY PREREGISTRATION INFORMATION: Effectiveness of Youth Psychotherapy Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; CRD42021240031.