@misc{DomhardtGessleinvonRezorietal.2019,
  author    = {Domhardt, Matthias and Gesslein, Helene and von Rezori, Roman Enzio and Baumeister, Harald},
  title     = {Internet- and mobile-based interventions for anxiety disorders},
  series = {Depreddion and anxiety},
  volume    = {36},
  journal   = {Depreddion and anxiety},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1091-4269},
  doi       = {10.1002/da.22860},
  pages     = {213 -- 224},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {BackgroundAlthough the efficacy of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for anxiety is established, little is known about the intervention components responsible for therapeutic change. We conducted the first comprehensive meta-analytic review of intervention components of IMIs for adult anxiety disorders. MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMIs for anxiety disorders to active online control groups, or IMIs to dismantled variations of the same intervention ( specific components) were identified by a systematic literature search in six databases. Outcomes were validated observer-rated or self-report measures for anxiety symptom severity and treatment adherence (number of completed modules and completer rate). This meta-analytic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017068268). ResultsWe extracted the data of 34 RCTs (with 3,724 participants) and rated the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on 19 comparisons of intervention components (i.a., different psychotherapeutic orientations, disorder-specific vs. transdiagnostic approaches, guidance factors). IMIs had a large effect when compared to active online controls on symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] of -1.67 [95\% CI: -2.93, -0.42]; P=0.009). Thereby, guided IMIs were superior to unguided interventions on symptom severity (SMD of -0.39 [95\% CI: -0.59, -0.18]; P=0.0002) and adherence (SMD of 0.38 [95\% CI: 0.10, 0.66]; P=0.007). ConclusionsOverall, the results of this meta-analysis lend further support to the efficacy of IMIs for anxiety, pointing to their potential to augment service supplies. Still, future research is needed to determine which ingredients are essential, as this meta-analytic review found no evidence for incremental effects of several single intervention components apart from guidance.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{PhilippKristonLanioetal.2019,
  author    = {Philipp, Rebecca and Kriston, Levente and Lanio, Jana and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Moritz, Steffen and Meister, Ramona},
  title     = {Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG)},
  series = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1063-3995},
  doi       = {10.1002/cpp.2345},
  pages     = {227 -- 240},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {We evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders. We searched electronic databases and included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing metacognitive interventions with other treatments in adults with mental disorders. Primary effectiveness and acceptability outcomes were symptom severity and dropout, respectively. We performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified Metacognitive Training (MCTrain), Metacognitive Therapy (MCTherap), and Metacognition Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT). We included 49 trials with 2,609 patients. In patients with schizophrenia, MCTrain was more effective than a psychological treatment (cognitive remediation, SMD = -0.39). It bordered significance when compared with standard or other psychological treatments. In a post hoc analysis, across all studies, the pooled effect was significant (SMD = -0.31). MCTrain was more effective than standard treatment in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (SMD = -0.40). MCTherap was more effective than a waitlist in patients with depression (SMD = -2.80), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD = -2.36), and psychological treatments (cognitive-behavioural) in patients with anxiety (SMD = -0.46). In patients with depression, MCTherap was not superior to psychological treatment (cognitive-behavioural). For MERIT, the database was too small to allow solid conclusions. Acceptability of metacognitive interventions among patients was high on average. Methodological quality was mostly unclear or moderate. Metacognitive interventions are likely to be effective in alleviating symptom severity in mental disorders. Although their add-on value against existing psychological interventions awaits to be established, potential advantages are their low threshold and economy.},
  language  = {en}
}