Methods: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
Results: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
Limitations: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search using relevant keywords was conducted in PubMed-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared technology-based interventions with inactive controls in the treatment of moderate to severe dental anxiety were included.
RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included in the review. These studies investigated the effectiveness of video modeling, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, virtual reality exposure therapy, and distraction with music and audiovisual video material. Six studies examining video modeling, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy, virtual reality exposure therapy, and distraction (audiovisual) showed significantly greater reductions in dental anxiety than inactive controls in both children and adults. None of the included studies followed Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines completely or reported sufficient data, thereby precluding a possible meta-analysis. Four out of seven included studies were assessed to be at high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies supported the effectiveness of technology-based interventions in the treatment of dental anxiety in children and adults.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The quality of the methods of studies on the effects of technology-based interventions allows only limited inferences on the effects of these interventions. However, within the limitations of the systematic review, the results converge to suggest that technology-based interventions may be useful as an adjunct to standard dental care. High-quality RCTs are needed to determine the (relative) effectiveness of these interventions.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017064810.
METHOD: A single-blind RCT was conducted among 30 randomized patients with dental phobia to either VRET or informational pamphlet (IP) condition. Primary outcome anxiety measures (VAS-A, MDAS and DFS) were evaluated at baseline, pre- and post-intervention, 1-week, 3-months and 6-months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures assessed were pre-post behavioral avoidance, temporal variations of heart rate and VR-experience during and post-VRET, and dental treatment acceptance in both conditions at 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis, using a repeated measures MANOVA, revealed a multivariate interaction effect between time and condition (p = 0.015) for all primary outcome measures (all ps
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC) over six months. Prostate cancer patients from UMMC received the intervention and patients from UKMMC were taken as controls. The level of depression, anxiety and stress were measured using Depression, Anxiety Stress Scales - 21 (DASS-21).
RESULTS: A total of 77 patients from the UMMC and 78 patients from the UKMMC participated. At the end of the study, 90.9% and 87.2% of patients from the UMMC and UKMMC groups completed the study respectively. There were significant improvements in anxiety (p<0.001, partial ?2=0.198) and stress (p<0.001, partial ?2=0.103) at the end of the study in those receiving muscle training. However, there was no improvement in depression (p=0.956).
CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in anxiety and stress showed the potential of APMRT in the management of prostate cancer patients. Future studies should be carried out over a longer duration to provide stronger evidence for the introduction of relaxation therapy among prostate cancer patients as a coping strategy to improve their anxiety and stress.