Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24113764›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2013

For whom does it work? moderators of outcome on the effect of a transdiagnostic internet-based maintenance treatment after inpatient psychotherapy: randomized controlled trial.

David Daniel Ebert, Mario Gollwitzer, Heleen Riper, Pim Cuijpers, Harald Baumeister, Matthias Berking

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Peer Support for the Hardly Reached: A Systematic Review.American journal of public health · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David Daniel EbertInnovation Incubator, Division Health-Training.Online, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lüneburg, Germany. Ebert@leuphana.de.
Mario Gollwitzer
Heleen Riper
Pim Cuijpers
Harald Baumeister
Matthias Berking

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent studies provide evidence for the effectiveness of Internet-based maintenance treatments for mental disorders. However, it is still unclear which participants might or might not profit from this particular kind of treatment delivery.

objectiveThe study aimed to identify moderators of treatment outcome in a transdiagnostic Internet-based maintenance treatment (TIMT) offered to patients after inpatient psychotherapy for mental disorders in routine care.

methodsUsing data from a randomized controlled trial (N=400) designed to test the effectiveness of TIMT, we performed secondary analyses to identify factors moderating the effects of TIMT (intervention) when compared with those of a treatment-as-usual control condition. TIMT involved an online self-management module, asynchronous patient-therapist communication, a peer support group, and online-based progress monitoring. Participants in the control condition had unstructured access to outpatient psychotherapy, standardized outpatient face-to-face continuation treatment, and psychotropic management. Self-reports of psychopathological symptoms and potential moderators were assessed at the start of inpatient treatment (T1), at discharge from inpatient treatment/start of TIMT (T2), and at 3-month (T3) and 12-month follow-up (T4).

resultsEducation level, positive outcome expectations, and diagnoses significantly moderated intervention versus control differences regarding changes in outcomes between T2 and T3. Only education level moderated change differences between T2 and T4. The effectiveness of the intervention (vs control) was more pronounced among participants with a low (vs high) education level (T2-T3: B=-0.32, SE 0.16, P=.049; T2-T4: B=-0.42, SE 0.21, P=.049), participants with high (vs low) positive outcome expectations (T2-T3: B=-0.12, SE 0.05, P=.02) and participants with anxiety disorder (vs mood disorder) (T2-T3: B=-0.43, SE 0.21, P=.04). Simple slope analyses revealed that despite some subgroups benefiting less from the intervention than others, all subgroups still benefited significantly.

conclusionsThis transdiagnostic Internet-based maintenance treatment might be suitable for a wide range of participants differing in various clinical, motivational, and demographic characteristics. The treatment is especially effective for participants with low education levels. These findings may generalize to other Internet-based maintenance treatments.

Indexed as

AftercareInpatientsInternetPsychotherapyTreatment OutcomeAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle Agedcontinuation treatmentguided self-helpInternet-based interventionmaintenance treatmentmental disorders/inpatient psychotherapymoderatorspredictorsrandomized controlled trialrelapse preventiontransdiagnostic treatment

Identifiers

PMID24113764
PMCPMC3849694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.