14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychological Interventions for the Fear of Public Speaking: A Meta-Analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Fear of Public Speaking (FoPS) or public speaking anxiety is a type of social anxiety and the single most commonly feared situation in the population. FoPS is disabling with negative occupational, academic, and social consequences, reported by up to one third of the population. FoPS in adolescence and adulthood is associated with an increased risk of developing generalized social anxiety disorder with further impairments. Since the last review on FoPS, a significant number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted assessing the effects of novel interventions with innovative modes of delivery.

          Objectives: The objectives of the present meta-analysis are to (1) examine the short and long-term effects of psychological interventions aimed at FoPS on FoPS and generalized social anxiety; (2) assess whether differences exist between technology-assisted modes of delivery (e.g., Internet-delivered therapies) and more traditional modes of delivering treatment (e.g., face-to-face therapies); (3) investigate whether differences in effect exist between theoretical frameworks; (4) inspect the differences in effect size between self-report measures and other measures (i.e., physiological and behavioral); (5) examine the effects of psychological interventions aimed at FoPS on secondary outcome measures (e.g., depression); and (6) investigate whether a “sleeper effect” is present for psychological interventions for FoPS and generalized social anxiety.

          Methods: The study investigates the effects of psychological interventions for FoPS through a quantitative meta-analysis of RCTs, using a random-effects model.

          Results: A total of 30 RCTs with 1,355 participants were included through systematic searches of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The majority of the studies investigated the effects of cognitive or behavioral interventions. Nearly half of the studies used active control groups (e.g., attention placebo), whereas the other half used passive (e.g., waitlist) controls. The overall effect of psychological interventions for FoPS across 62 interventions was 0.74 (Hedges g; 95% CI: 0.61–0.87) with low to moderate heterogeneity. No difference in effect was found across theoretical frameworks. The effects based on self-report measures were larger compared to physiological and behavioral outcomes. Effects were robust against both active and passive control groups. Furthermore, psychological interventions for FoPS had a small to moderate effect on generalized social anxiety disorder ( g = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.22–0.48). The effect of psychological interventions aimed at FoPS at follow-up was large ( g = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.90–1.31) and moderate to large for generalized social anxiety ( g = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59–0.80). A sleeper effect was found for cognitive and behavioral interventions, indicating that patients continued to improve after treatment termination. There were some indications of publication bias.

          Conclusions: Psychological interventions are effective in reducing FoPS. Interventions using technology-assisted modes of delivery are equally effective as traditional face-to-face interventions in reducing FoPS. This finding highlights an opportunity to increase access to evidence-based treatments through technology-delivered interventions, which can be implemented at schools, in primary care and specialist mental health care. Moreover, psychological interventions aimed at FoPS have an effect on generalized social anxiety. Further implications are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Social anxiety disorder.

            Our understanding of social anxiety disorder (also known as social phobia) has moved from rudimentary awareness that it is not merely shyness to a much more sophisticated appreciation of its prevalence, its chronic and pernicious nature, and its neurobiological underpinnings. Social anxiety disorder is the most common anxiety disorder; it has an early age of onset--by age 11 years in about 50% and by age 20 years in about 80% of individuals--and it is a risk factor for subsequent depressive illness and substance abuse. Functional neuroimaging studies point to increased activity in amygdala and insula in patients with social anxiety disorder, and genetic studies are increasingly focusing on this and other (eg, personality trait neuroticism) core phenotypes to identify risk loci. A range of effective cognitive behavioural and pharmacological treatments for children and adults now exists; the challenges lie in optimum integration and dissemination of these treatments, and learning how to help the 30-40% of patients for whom treatment does not work.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice.

              In randomized clinical trails (RCTs), effect sizes seen in earlier studies guide both the choice of the effect size that sets the appropriate threshold of clinical significance and the rationale to believe that the true effect size is above that threshold worth pursuing in an RCT. That threshold is used to determine the necessary sample size for the proposed RCT. Once the RCT is done, the data generated are used to estimate the true effect size and its confidence interval. Clinical significance is assessed by comparing the true effect size to the threshold effect size. In subsequent meta-analysis, this effect size is combined with others, ultimately to determine whether treatment (T) is clinically significantly better than control (C). Thus, effect sizes play an important role both in designing RCTs and in interpreting their results; but specifically which effect size? We review the principles of statistical significance, power, and meta-analysis, and commonly used effect sizes. The commonly used effect sizes are limited in conveying clinical significance. We recommend three equivalent effect sizes: number needed to treat, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve comparing T and C responses, and success rate difference, chosen specifically to convey clinical significance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                15 March 2019
                2019
                : 10
                : 488
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen , Bergen, Norway
                [2] 2Division of Psychiatry, Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen, Norway
                Author notes

                Edited by: Helena Moreira, University of Coimbra, Portugal

                Reviewed by: Andreea Visla, University of Zurich, Switzerland; Mariano Alcañiz, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain

                *Correspondence: Omid V. Ebrahimi omid.ebrahimi@ 123456student.uib.no

                This article was submitted to Clinical and Health Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00488
                6428748
                30930813
                4b8ba6ac-ee86-401f-8052-257d34e84381
                Copyright © 2019 Ebrahimi, Pallesen, Kenter and Nordgreen.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 19 October 2018
                : 19 February 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 8, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 87, Pages: 27, Words: 16168
                Funding
                Funded by: Universitetet i Bergen 10.13039/501100005036
                Categories
                Psychology
                Systematic Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                fear of public speaking,public speaking anxiety,social anxiety disorder,meta-analysis,systematic review,psychological treatment,randomized controlled trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article