No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 September 2022
Technology-based interventions (TBIs), including computer and Internet-based interventions, mobile interventions, health applications, social media interventions, and interventions using technological devices, could become a useful, effective, accessible, and cost-effective approach (Berry et al., 2016; Firth, 2016) to complement conventional interventions for psychosis
to compare TBIs with conventional interventions for psychosis, focusing mainly on functioning and quality of life.
The systematic review preceding this work was based on 58 RCT of TBIs for psychosis. We selected the studies that analyzed functioning (N = 23) and quality of life (N = 15). We calculated the standardized mean change (SMC) and applied a three-level model because there were several effect sizes within the same study.
There were significant differences between TBIs and conventional interventions for functioning (d = 0.25, SE = 0.09, z = 2.72, p = <.01), but not for quality of life (d = 0.14, SE = 0.08, z = 1.78, p = .076) in patients with psychosis.
On average, patients who received TBIs performed better in functioning, but not in quality of life. Functioning is impaired in patients with psychosis, so TBIs should be considered a complement and efficacious intervention, highlighting the power of these type of interventions in improving some outcomes.
No significant relationships.
You have
Access
Open access
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.