Technology-Enhanced Maintenance of Treatment Gains in Eating Disorders: Efficacy of an Intervention Delivered via Text Messaging
Technology-Enhanced Maintenance of Treatment Gains in Eating Disorders: Efficacy of an Intervention Delivered via Text Messaging
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0028030
复制
发表时间：
2012-08-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Kordy, Hans
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bauer, Stephanie;Okon, Eberhard;Kordy, Hans
目的：由于缺乏饮食失调的维持干预措施，开发了一个通过短信服务（SMS）和短信提供的计划，以支持患者出院后的住院治疗。方法：采用随机对照试验研究干预效果。此外，还调查了其对随访期间门诊治疗利用率的影响。将165例患有神经性贪食症或相关饮食障碍（未另行说明）的女性患者随机分配至对照组（常规治疗; TAU）或干预组（基于SMS的维持干预; SMS）。出院后，干预组的参与者通过短信提交了为期16周的每周症状报告，并收到了量身定制的反馈。主要结果是出院后8个月的部分缓解率。结果如下：在意向治疗分析中，缓解率差异达到显著性（SMS = 51.2%; TAU = 36.1%），卡方（2）（1）= 3.81，p = 0.05，在完成者分析中接近显著性（SMS = 59.2%; TAU = 43.5%），卡方（2）（1）= 3.44，p = 0.06。在门诊治疗的利用方面没有差异。在门诊治疗的患者中，干预组和对照组的缓解率无显著差异（63.2% vs. 55.6%），卡方检验（2）（1）= 0.44，p = 0.51。在未使用此类治疗的患者中发现了显著差异（54.5% vs. 30.3%），chi（2）（1）= 3.97，p = 0.046。结论：出院后护理干预能有效提高出院后的治疗效果。
Objective: Given the lack of maintenance interventions for eating disorders, a program delivered via the short message service (SMS) and text messaging was developed to support patients after their discharge from inpatient treatment. Method: The efficacy of the intervention was studied in a randomized controlled trial. Additionally, its impact on the utilization of outpatient treatment during follow-up was investigated. One hundred sixty-five female patients with bulimia nervosa or a related eating disorder not otherwise specified were randomly assigned to a control group (treatment as usual; TAU) or an intervention group (SMS-based maintenance intervention; SMS). After hospital discharge, participants in the intervention group submitted a weekly symptom report via text message for 16 weeks and received tailored feedback. Primary outcome was the rate of partial remission 8 months after discharge from inpatient treatment. Results: The difference in remission rates reached significance in the intent-to-treat analyses (SMS = 51.2%; TAU = 36.1%), chi(2)(1) = 3.81, p = .05, and approached significance in the completer analysis (SMS = 59.2%; TAU = 43.5%), chi(2)(l) = 3.44, p = .06. There were no differences in the utilization of outpatient treatment. Remission rates between the intervention and control groups were not significantly different among patients who used outpatient treatment (63.2% vs. 55.6%), chi(2)(1) = 0.44, p = .51. A significant difference was found in those who did not utilize such treatment (54.5% vs. 30.3%), chi(2)(1) = 3.97, p = .046. Conclusion: The aftercare intervention was efficacious in enhancing treatment outcome after discharge from inpatient treatment.