This meta-analysis confirms a reciprocal link between depression and obesity. Obesity was found to increase the risk of depression, most pronounced among Americans and for clinically diagnosed depression. In addition, depression was found to be predictive of developing obesity.

Background. We studied to what extent internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) programs for symptoms of depression and anxiety are effective.

No abstract

BackgroundDepression and anxiety disorders are common and treatable with cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), but access to this therapy is limited.ObjectiveReview evidence that computerized CBT for the anxiety and depressive disorders is acceptable to patients and effective in the short and longer term.MethodSystematic reviews and data bases were searched for randomized controlled trials of computerized cognitive behavior therapy versus a treatment or control condition in people who met diagnostic criteria for major depression, panic disorder, social phobia or generalized anxiety disorder. Number randomized, superiority of treatment versus control (Hedges g) on primary outcome measure, risk of bias, length of follow up, patient adherence and satisfaction were extracted.Principal Findings22 studies of comparisons with a control group were identified. The mean effect size superiority was 0.88 (NNT 2.13), and the benefit was evident across all four disorders. Improvement from computerized CBT was maintained for a median of 26 weeks follow-up. Acceptability, as indicated by adherence and satisfaction, was good. Research probity was good and bias risk low. Effect sizes were non-significantly higher in comparisons with waitlist than with active treatment control conditions. Five studies comparing computerized CBT with traditional face-to-face CBT were identified, and both modes of treatment appeared equally beneficial.ConclusionsComputerized CBT for anxiety and depressive disorders, especially via the internet, has the capacity to provide effective acceptable and practical health care for those who might otherwise remain untreated.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000030077

The effectiveness of and adherence to eHealth interventions is enhanced by human support. However, human support has largely not been manualized and has usually not been guided by clear models. The objective of this paper is to develop a clear theoretical model, based on relevant empirical literature, that can guide research into human support components of eHealth interventions. A review of the literature revealed little relevant information from clinical sciences. Applicable literature was drawn primarily from organizational psychology, motivation theory, and computer-mediated communication (CMC) research. We have developed a model, referred to as “Supportive Accountability.” We argue that human support increases adherence through accountability to a coach who is seen as trustworthy, benevolent, and having expertise. Accountability should involve clear, process-oriented expectations that the patient is involved in determining. Reciprocity in the relationship, through which the patient derives clear benefits, should be explicit. The effect of accountability may be moderated by patient motivation. The more intrinsically motivated patients are, the less support they likely require. The process of support is also mediated by the communications medium (eg, telephone, instant messaging, email). Different communications media each have their own potential benefits and disadvantages. We discuss the specific components of accountability, motivation, and CMC medium in detail. The proposed model is a first step toward understanding how human support enhances adherence to eHealth interventions. Each component of the proposed model is a testable hypothesis. As we develop viable human support models, these should be manualized to facilitate dissemination.

During the last two decades, Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) has been tested in hundreds of randomized controlled trials, often with promising results. However, the control groups were often waitlisted, care-as-usual or attention control. Hence, little is known about the relative efficacy of ICBT as compared to face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 1418 participants, guided ICBT for psychiatric and somatic conditions were directly compared to face-to-face CBT within the same trial. Out of the 2078 articles screened, a total of 20 studies met all inclusion criteria. Results showed a pooled effect size at post-treatment of Hedges g = .05 (95% CI, -.09 to .20), indicating that ICBT and face-to-face treatment produced equivalent overall effects. Study quality did not affect outcomes. While the overall results indicate equivalence, there have been few studies of the individual psychiatric and somatic conditions so far, and for the majority, guided ICBT has not been compared against face-to-face treatment. Thus, more research, preferably with larger sample sizes, is needed to establish the general equivalence of the two treatment formats.

No abstract

Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (ICBT) has been tested in many research trials, but to a lesser extent directly compared to faceto-face delivered cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in which guided ICBT was directly compared to face-to-face CBT. Studies on psychiatric and somatic conditions were included. Systematic searches resulted in 13 studies (total N51053) that met all criteria and were included in the review. There were three studies on social anxiety disorder, three on panic disorder, two on depressive symptoms, two on body dissatisfaction, one on tinnitus, one on male sexual dysfunction, and one on spider phobia. Face-to-face CBT was either in the individual format (n56) or in the group format (n57). We also assessed quality and risk of bias. Results showed a pooled effect size (Hedges' g) at post-treatment of 20.01 (95% CI: 20.13 to 0.12), indicating that guided ICBT and face-to-face treatment produce equivalent overall effects. Study quality did not affect outcomes. While the overall results indicate equivalence, there are still few studies for each psychiatric and somatic condition and many conditions for which guided ICBT has not been compared to face-to-face treatment. Thus, more research is needed to establish equivalence of the two treatment formats.