Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36405626›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022

A mixed methods systematic review of digital interventions to support the psychological health and well-being of people living with dermatological conditions.

Rachael M Hewitt, Matthew Ploszajski, Catherine Purcell, Rachael Pattinson, Bethan Jones, Georgina H Wren, Olivia Hughes, Matthew J Ridd, Andrew R Thompson, Chris Bundy

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

10 authors.

Rachael M HewittSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Matthew PloszajskiSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Catherine PurcellSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Rachael PattinsonSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Bethan JonesSchool of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Georgina H WrenSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Olivia HughesSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Matthew J RiddPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andrew R ThompsonSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Chris BundySchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Dermatological conditions can have a substantial impact on psychological as well as physical health yet dedicated face-to-face psychological support for patients is lacking. Thus, individuals may require additional support to self-manage dermatological conditions effectively. Digital technology can contribute to long-term condition management, but knowledge of the effectiveness of digital interventions addressing psychological (cognitive, emotional, and behavioural) aspects of dermatological conditions is limited. Objectives: To identify, determine the effectiveness, and explore people's views and experiences of digital interventions supporting the psychological health of people with dermatological conditions. Methods: A mixed methods systematic review informed by JBI methodology. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Eight electronic databases were searched for papers written between January 2002 and October 2021. Data screening and extraction were conducted in Covidence. The methodological quality of studies were scrutinised against JBI critical appraisal tools. Intervention characteristics were captured using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist and guide. Data were synthesised using a convergent segregated approach. The results were reported in a narrative summary. Results: Twenty-three papers were identified from 4,883 references, including 15 randomised controlled trials. Nineteen interventions were condition-specific, 13 were delivered online, 16 involved an educational component, and 7 endorsed established, evidence-based therapeutic approaches. Improvements in knowledge, mood, quality of life, the therapeutic relationship, and reduced disease severity in the short to medium term, were reported, although there was substantial heterogeneity within the literature. Thirteen studies captured feedback from users, who considered various digital interventions as convenient and helpful for improving knowledge, emotion regulation, and personal control, but technical and individual barriers to use were reported. Use of established qualitative methodologies was limited and, in some cases, poorly reported. Conclusion: Some web-based digital psychological interventions seem to be acceptable to people living with mainly psoriasis and eczema. Whilst some digital interventions benefitted cognitive and emotional factors, heterogeneity and inconsistencies in the literature meant definitive statements about their effectiveness could not be drawn. Interdisciplinary and patient-centred approaches to research are needed to develop and test quality digital interventions supporting the psychological health of adults living with common and rare dermatological conditions. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=285435], identifier [CRD42021285435].

Indexed as

behaviour changedermatologydigital healthpsychologysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36405626
PMCPMC9669071

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.