Purpose: Online group-based interventions are widely adopted, but their efficacy, when compared with similar face-to-face (F2F) psychosocial group interventions, has not been sufficiently examined. Methods: This systematic review included randomly controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention/model delivered in both F2F and online formats. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. Results: The search yielded 15 RCTs. Effect sizes ranged from small to exceptionally large. Between-condition effect sizes yielded nonsignificant differences in effectiveness except for three studies that reported superior effectiveness in outcomes for F2F interventions. High heterogeneity was found where only two studies integrated rigorous designs, thus limiting opportunity for a meta-analysis evaluation. Conclusions: Most studies showed comparable outcomes in both F2F and online modalities. However, given the heterogeneity of samples and outcomes, it is premature to conclude that online treatment is as effective as F2F for all challenges and populations.

中文翻译：

---

在线与面对面团体干预的效果比较：系统评价

目的：基于在线团体的干预措施被广泛采用，但与类似的面对面（F2F）心理社会团体干预措施相比，其有效性尚未得到充分检验。方法：这项系统评价包括随机对照试验 (RCT)，比较以面对面和在线形式提供的干预/模型。该审查遵循 PRISMA 指南并已在 PROSPERO 注册。结果：检索产生了 15 项 RCT。效应大小范围从小到特别大。除了三项研究报告 F2F 干预结果具有优异的有效性外，条件间效应大小在有效性方面没有显着差异。只有两项研究整合了严格的设计，从而发现了高度异质性，从而限制了荟萃分析评估的机会。结论：大多数研究显示面对面和在线方式的结果相当。然而，考虑到样本和结果的异质性，现在断定在线治疗对于所有挑战和人群都与 F2F 一样有效还为时过早。