Premium
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE CLINICAL EFFICACY OF ATTENTION BIAS MODIFICATION TREATMENT FOR ANXIETY DISORDERS
Author(s) -
Linetzky Marian,
PergaminHight Lee,
Pine Daniel S.,
BarHaim Yair
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
depression and anxiety
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.634
H-Index - 129
eISSN - 1520-6394
pISSN - 1091-4269
DOI - 10.1002/da.22344
Subject(s) - anxiety , psychology , clinical psychology , exposure therapy , psychiatry , psychotherapist , medicine
Background Attention bias modification treatment (ABMT) is a novel treatment for anxiety disorders. Although a number of other meta‐analytic reviews exist, the purpose of the present meta‐analysis is to examine issues unaddressed in prior reviews. Specifically, the review estimates the efficacy of ABMT in clinically anxious patients and examines the effect of delivery context (clinic vs. home) on symptom reduction. Methods A literature search using PsychInfo and Web of Science databases was performed. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dot‐probe‐based ABMT in clinically diagnosed anxious patients were included. From 714 articles located through the search, 36 ABMT studies were identified and 11 studies met inclusion criteria ( N = 589 patients). Results ABMT was associated with greater clinician‐rated reductions in anxiety symptoms relative to control training: between‐groups effect ( d = 0.42, P = .001, confidence interval (CI) = 0.18–0.66), contrast of within‐group effects ( Q = 7.25, P < .01). More patients in the treatment group no longer met formal diagnostic criteria for their anxiety disorder posttreatment relative to patients in the control condition ( P < .05). Analyses of patients’ self‐reported anxiety were nonsignificant for the between‐groups contrast ( P = .35), and were at a trend level of significance for the contrast between the within‐group effects ( P = .06). Moderation analysis of the between‐groups effect revealed a significant effect for ABMT delivered in the clinic ( d = 0.34, P = 0.01, CI = 0.07–0.62), and a nonsignificant effect for ABMT delivered at home ( d = −0.10, P = 0.40, CI = −0.33–0.13). Conclusions The current meta‐analysis provides support for ABMT as a novel evidenced‐based treatment for anxiety disorders. Overall, ABMT effects are mainly evident when it is delivered in the clinic and when clinical outcome is evaluated by a clinician. More RCTs of ABMT in specific anxiety disorders are warranted.