Centre d'Information et de documentation du CRA Rhône-Alpes
CRA
Informations pratiques
-
Adresse
Centre d'information et de documentation
du CRA Rhône-Alpes
Centre Hospitalier le Vinatier
bât 211
95, Bd Pinel
69678 Bron CedexHoraires
Lundi au Vendredi
9h00-12h00 13h30-16h00Contact
Tél: +33(0)4 37 91 54 65
Mail
Fax: +33(0)4 37 91 54 37
-
Détail de l'auteur
Auteur Cristina MOGOA?E |
Documents disponibles écrits par cet auteur (1)
Faire une suggestion Affiner la recherche
Practitioner Review: Cognitive bias modification for mental health problems in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis / Ioana A. CRISTEA in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56-7 (July 2015)
[article]
Titre : Practitioner Review: Cognitive bias modification for mental health problems in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis Type de document : Texte imprimé et/ou numérique Auteurs : Ioana A. CRISTEA, Auteur ; Cristina MOGOA?E, Auteur ; Daniel DAVID, Auteur ; Pim CUIJPERS, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.723-734 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : Cognitive bias modification meta-analysis RCT interventions clinical efficacy mental health children adolescents Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Despite accumulating research and bold claims about the efficacy of cognitive bias modification (CBM) for young populations, no meta-analysis has attempted to synthesize the research literature so far. We examined whether there was empirical evidence for the clinical efficacy of CBM interventions in youths, while also considering the methodological quality of this evidence. Methods Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsychInfo, Cochrane Library and EMBASE to June 2014). We included randomized controlled trials of CBM interventions, and considered both clinical outcomes and targeted biases. We examined the quality of the trials, as well as potential publication bias and possible moderators. Results We identified 23 trials that reported on four types of outcomes: mental health, anxiety, depression and bias. Effect sizes were small and nonsignificant for all symptom outcomes considered. We found a moderate significant effect size for bias outcomes (Hedges' g of 0.53), with significant heterogeneity. There were no differences between types of CBM interventions, or between one versus multiple-session applications. A small but significant effect size for mental health problems arose when the intervention was delivered in schools. The quality of almost all of the included studies was suboptimal and the vast majority did not include information needed for allowing quality assessment. Conclusions We conducted the first meta-analysis of CBM interventions for children and adolescents and found no effects for mental health outcomes, but we did find moderate and significant effects on the targeted biases. Our results cast serious doubts on CBM interventions having any clinical utility for nonadult populations. Demand characteristics might play an important part in CBM research. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12383 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=260
in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 56-7 (July 2015) . - p.723-734[article] Practitioner Review: Cognitive bias modification for mental health problems in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis [Texte imprimé et/ou numérique] / Ioana A. CRISTEA, Auteur ; Cristina MOGOA?E, Auteur ; Daniel DAVID, Auteur ; Pim CUIJPERS, Auteur . - p.723-734.
Langues : Anglais (eng)
in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 56-7 (July 2015) . - p.723-734
Mots-clés : Cognitive bias modification meta-analysis RCT interventions clinical efficacy mental health children adolescents Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Despite accumulating research and bold claims about the efficacy of cognitive bias modification (CBM) for young populations, no meta-analysis has attempted to synthesize the research literature so far. We examined whether there was empirical evidence for the clinical efficacy of CBM interventions in youths, while also considering the methodological quality of this evidence. Methods Studies were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsychInfo, Cochrane Library and EMBASE to June 2014). We included randomized controlled trials of CBM interventions, and considered both clinical outcomes and targeted biases. We examined the quality of the trials, as well as potential publication bias and possible moderators. Results We identified 23 trials that reported on four types of outcomes: mental health, anxiety, depression and bias. Effect sizes were small and nonsignificant for all symptom outcomes considered. We found a moderate significant effect size for bias outcomes (Hedges' g of 0.53), with significant heterogeneity. There were no differences between types of CBM interventions, or between one versus multiple-session applications. A small but significant effect size for mental health problems arose when the intervention was delivered in schools. The quality of almost all of the included studies was suboptimal and the vast majority did not include information needed for allowing quality assessment. Conclusions We conducted the first meta-analysis of CBM interventions for children and adolescents and found no effects for mental health outcomes, but we did find moderate and significant effects on the targeted biases. Our results cast serious doubts on CBM interventions having any clinical utility for nonadult populations. Demand characteristics might play an important part in CBM research. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12383 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=260