Cited by 64Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchDigital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Distance-delivered interventions for PTSD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Olthuis, Janine V., Wozney, Lori, Asmundson, Gordon J.G., Cramm, Heidi, Lingley-Pottie, Patricia, McGrath, Patrick J.·2016·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of distance-delivered, guided approaches to treatment (e.g., delivered via telephone, Internet, mail, videoconferencing) for clinical and subclinical posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A comprehensive search yielded 19 randomized controlled trials (1491 participants) to be included. Meta-analyses revealed that distance-delivered interventions led to significant within-group improvements in PTSD symptoms at post-treatment (g=0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97) and 3-6 month follow-up (g=0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97). Within-group depression and quality of life outcomes showed similar results, with medium post-treatment and follow-up effects. Compared to a waiting list, distance delivery (specifically, Internet treatments) led to superior PTSD outcomes (g=0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86). Compared to face-to-face interventions, distance delivery (specifically, videoconferencing treatments) did not result in significantly different PTSD outcomes at post-treatment (g=-0.05, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.20) but led to inferior outcomes at 3-6 month follow-up (g=-0.25, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.07). Distance delivery of PTSD treatment is promising, but research is needed to determine its optimal use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.09.010

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olthuis, J. V., Wozney, L., Asmundson, G. J. G., Cramm, H., Lingley-Pottie, P., & McGrath, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of New Brunswick (CA)
  • Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre (CA)
  • University of Regina (CA)
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Olthuis, Janine V.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
44
Pages
9-26
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2523109251
Cited by
64
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QSpace (Queen's University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Regina
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, internet-delivered treatment, videoconferencing, guided self-help, subclinical PTSD, depression, quality of life, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Distance Counseling, Humans, Quality of Life, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Videoconferencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review