-
The Lancet. Psychiatry Jul 2020Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice;... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.
FINDINGS
From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.
INTERPRETATION
Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.
FUNDING
National Key Research and Development Program of China.
Topics: Adolescent; Antidepressive Agents; Child; Depressive Disorder; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32563306
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30137-1 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Jun 2020The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is 1%. Schizophrenia is among the most severe mental illnesses and gives rise to the highest treatment costs per patient of any...
BACKGROUND
The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is 1%. Schizophrenia is among the most severe mental illnesses and gives rise to the highest treatment costs per patient of any disease. It is characterized by frequent relapses, marked impairment of quality of life, and reduced social and work participation.
METHODS
The group entrusted with the creation of the German clinical practice guideline was chosen to be representative and pluralistic in its composition. It carried out a systematic review of the relevant literature up to March 2018 and identified a total of 13 389 publications, five source guidelines, three other relevant German clinical practice guidelines, and four reference guidelines.
RESULTS
As the available antipsychotic drugs do not differ to any great extent in efficacy, it is recommended that acute antipsychotic drug therapy should be sideeffect- driven, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5 to 8. The choice of treatment should take motor, metabolic, sexual, cardiac, and hematopoietic considerations into account. Ongoing antipsychotic treatment is recommended to prevent relapses (NNT: 3) and should be re-evaluated on a regular basis in every case. It is also recommended, with recommendation grades ranging from strong to intermediate, that disorder- and manifestation-driven forms of psychotherapy and psychosocial therapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy for positive or negative manifestations (effect sizes ranging from d = 0.372 to d = 0.437) or psycho-education to prevent relapses (NNT: 9), should be used in combination with antipsychotic drug treatment. Further aspects include rehabilitation, the management of special treatment situations, care coordination, and quality management. A large body of evidence is available to provide a basis for guideline recommendations, particularly in the areas of pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy.
CONCLUSION
The evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of persons with schizophrenia should be carried out in a multiprofessional process, with close involvement of the affected persons and the people closest to them.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Psychotherapy; Quality of Life; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 32865492
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0412 -
JAMA Psychiatry Feb 2021Several psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Several psychotherapy protocols have been evaluated as adjuncts to pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE
To use systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the association of using manualized psychotherapies and therapy components with reducing recurrences and stabilizing symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.
DATA SOURCES
Major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews) and trial registries were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for randomized clinical trials of psychotherapy for bipolar disorder.
STUDY SELECTION
Of 3255 abstracts, 39 randomized clinical trials were identified that compared pharmacotherapy plus manualized psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy plus a control intervention (eg, supportive therapy or treatment as usual) for patients with bipolar disorder.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Binary outcomes (recurrence and study retention) were compared across treatments using odds ratios (ORs). For depression or mania severity scores, data were pooled and compared across treatments using standardized mean differences (SMDs) (Hedges-adjusted g using weighted pooled SDs). In component network meta-analyses, the incremental effectiveness of 13 specific therapy components was examined.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was illness recurrence. Secondary outcomes were depressive and manic symptoms at 12 months and acceptability of treatment (study retention).
RESULTS
A total of 39 randomized clinical trials with 3863 participants (2247 of 3693 [60.8%] with data on sex were female; mean [SD] age, 36.5 [8.2] years) were identified. Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized treatments were associated with lower recurrence rates than control treatments (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74). Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was associated with reducing recurrences vs the same strategies in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94). Cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.01) and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.01 to 0.08) and interpersonal therapy (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.15) were associated with stabilizing depressive symptoms compared with treatment as usual. Higher study retention was associated with family or conjoint therapy (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.82) and brief psychoeducation (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) compared with standard psychoeducation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study suggests that outpatients with bipolar disorder may benefit from skills-based psychosocial interventions combined with pharmacotherapy. Conclusions are tempered by heterogeneity in populations, treatment duration, and follow-up.
Topics: Adult; Bipolar Disorder; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 33052390
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.2993 -
Revue Neurologique May 2020Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques...
Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Antidepressive Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Complementary Therapies; France; Humans; Mindfulness; Neuralgia; Pain Management; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 32276788
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurol.2020.01.361 -
JAMA Psychiatry Jul 2020It is not clear whether psychotherapies for depression have comparable effects across the life span. Finding out is important from a clinical and scientific perspective. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
It is not clear whether psychotherapies for depression have comparable effects across the life span. Finding out is important from a clinical and scientific perspective.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of psychotherapies for depression between different age groups.
DATA SOURCES
Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for trials comparing psychotherapy with control conditions up to January 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for depression with control conditions in all age groups were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Effect sizes (Hedges g) were calculated for all comparisons and pooled with random-effects models. Differences in effects between age groups were examined with mixed-effects subgroup analyses and in meta-regression analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Depressive symptoms were the primary outcome.
RESULTS
After removing duplicates, 16 756 records were screened and 2608 full-text articles were screened. Of these, 366 trials (36 702 patients) with 453 comparisons between a therapy and a control condition were included in the qualitative analysis, including 13 (3.6%) in children (13 years and younger), 24 (6.6%) in adolescents (≥13 to 18 years), 19 (5.2%) in young adults (≥18 to 24 years), 242 (66.1%) in middle-aged adults (≥24 to 55 years), 58 (15.8%) in older adults (≥55 to 75 years), and 10 (2.7%) in older old adults (75 years and older). The overall effect size of all comparisons across all age groups was g = 0.75 (95% CI, 0.67-0.82), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI: 78-82). Mean effect sizes for depressive symptoms in children (g = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.55) and adolescents (g = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75) were significantly lower than those in middle-aged adults (g = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87). The effect sizes in young adults (g = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16) were significantly larger than those in middle-aged adults. No significant difference was found between older adults (g = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82) and those in older old adults (g = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.42-1.52). The outcomes should be considered with caution because of the suboptimal quality of most of the studies and the high levels of heterogeneity. However, most primary findings proved robust across sensitivity analyses, addressing risk of bias, target populations included, type of therapy, diagnosis of mood disorder, and method of data analysis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Trials included in this meta-analysis reported effect sizes of psychotherapies that were smaller in children than in adults, probably also smaller in adolescents, that the effects may be somewhat larger in young adults, and without meaningful differences between middle-aged adults, older adults, and older old adults.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Psychotherapy; Young Adult
PubMed: 32186668
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0164 -
Journal of Consulting and Clinical... Nov 2017This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for eating disorders.
METHOD
Randomized controlled trials of CBT were searched. Seventy-nine trials were included.
RESULTS
Therapist-led CBT was more efficacious than inactive (wait-lists) and active (any psychotherapy) comparisons in individuals with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder. Therapist-led CBT was most efficacious when manualized CBT-BN or its enhanced version was delivered. No significant differences were observed between therapist-led CBT for bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder and antidepressants at posttreatment. CBT was also directly compared to other specific psychological interventions, and therapist-led CBT resulted in greater reductions in behavioral and cognitive symptoms than interpersonal psychotherapy at posttreatment. At follow-up, CBT outperformed interpersonal psychotherapy only on cognitive symptoms. CBT for binge eating disorder also resulted in greater reductions in behavioral symptoms than behavioral weight loss interventions. There was no evidence that CBT was more efficacious than behavior therapy or nonspecific supportive therapies.
CONCLUSIONS
CBT is efficacious for eating disorders. Although CBT was equally efficacious to certain psychological treatments, the fact that CBT outperformed all active psychological comparisons and interpersonal psychotherapy specifically, offers some support for the specificity of psychological treatments for eating disorders. Conclusions from this study are hampered by the fact that many trials were of poor quality. Higher quality RCTs are essential. (PsycINFO Database Record
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Binge-Eating Disorder; Bulimia Nervosa; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Psychotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29083223
DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000245 -
The Journal of Pain Sep 2015The pain field has been advocating for some time for the importance of teaching people how to live well with pain. Perhaps some, and maybe even for many, we might again... (Review)
Review
The pain field has been advocating for some time for the importance of teaching people how to live well with pain. Perhaps some, and maybe even for many, we might again consider the possibility that we can help people live well without pain. Explaining Pain (EP) refers to a range of educational interventions that aim to change one's understanding of the biological processes that are thought to underpin pain as a mechanism to reduce pain itself. It draws on educational psychology, in particular conceptual change strategies, to help patients understand current thought in pain biology. The core objective of the EP approach to treatment is to shift one's conceptualization of pain from that of a marker of tissue damage or disease to that of a marker of the perceived need to protect body tissue. Here, we describe the historical context and beginnings of EP, suggesting that it is a pragmatic application of the biopsychosocial model of pain, but differentiating it from cognitive behavioral therapy and educational components of early multidisciplinary pain management programs. We attempt to address common misconceptions of EP that have emerged over the last 15 years, highlighting that EP is not behavioral or cognitive advice, nor does it deny the potential contribution of peripheral nociceptive signals to pain. We contend that EP is grounded in strong theoretical frameworks, that its targeted effects are biologically plausible, and that available behavioral evidence is supportive. We update available meta-analyses with results of a systematic review of recent contributions to the field and propose future directions by which we might enhance the effects of EP as part of multimodal pain rehabilitation. Perspective: EP is a range of educational interventions. EP is grounded in conceptual change and instructional design theory. It increases knowledge of pain-related biology, decreases catastrophizing, and imparts short-term reductions in pain and disability. It presents the biological information that justifies a biopsychosocial approach to rehabilitation.
Topics: History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Pain; Patient Education as Topic; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 26051220
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.05.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Self-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries, often repeated, and associated with suicide. Evidence assessing the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of SH in children and adolescents is lacking, especially when compared with the evidence for psychosocial interventions in adults. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2015) on the role of interventions for SH in children and adolescents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions or pharmacological agents or natural products for SH compared to comparison types of care (e.g. treatment-as-usual, routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care, active comparator, placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, or a combination of these) for children and adolescents (up to 18 years of age) who engage in SH.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialized Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing specific psychosocial interventions or pharmacological agents or natural products with treatment-as-usual (TAU), routine psychiatric care, enhanced usual care (EUC), active comparator, placebo, alternative pharmacological treatment, or a combination of these, in children and adolescents with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence internals (CIs). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. The overall quality of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from 17 trials with a total of 2280 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (87.6%) with a mean age of 14.7 years (standard deviation (SD) 1.5 years). The trials included in this review investigated the effectiveness of various forms of psychosocial interventions. None of the included trials evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in this clinical population. There was a lower rate of SH repetition for DBT-A (30%) as compared to TAU, EUC, or alternative psychotherapy (43%) on repetition of SH at post-intervention in four trials (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82; N = 270; k = 4; high-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference for individual cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based psychotherapy and TAU for repetition of SH at post-intervention (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.24; N = 51; k = 2; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mentalisation based therapy for adolescents (MBT-A) reduces repetition of SH at post-intervention as compared to TAU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.46; N = 85; k = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial ( I² = 68%). There is probably no evidence of a difference between family therapy and either TAU or EUC on repetition of SH at post-intervention (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.07; N = 191; k = 2; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference for compliance enhancement approaches on repetition of SH by the six-month follow-up assessment, for group-based psychotherapy at the six- or 12-month follow-up assessments, for a remote contact intervention (emergency cards) at the 12-month assessment, or for therapeutic assessment at the 12- or 24-month follow-up assessments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the moderate or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, there is only uncertain evidence regarding a number of psychosocial interventions in children and adolescents who engage in SH. Further evaluation of DBT-A is warranted. Given the evidence for its benefit in adults who engage in SH, individual CBT-based psychotherapy should also be further developed and evaluated in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Bias; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Confidence Intervals; Depression; Dialectical Behavior Therapy; Family Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Mentalization; Odds Ratio; Patient Compliance; Psychosocial Intervention; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Self-Injurious Behavior; Suicidal Ideation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33677832
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013667.pub2 -
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy Jan 2017This article presents a systematic review of the process research on solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). We searched published and unpublished studies in English... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This article presents a systematic review of the process research on solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). We searched published and unpublished studies in English across five databases, five major journals, two book chapters, and four websites to locate studies that investigate why and how SFBT works. Thirty-three studies that used various research methods were located and included for further analysis using a meta-summary approach. The findings supported the significance of the co-construction process within SFBT and the effects of specific types of SFBT techniques. The most empirical support was found for the strength-oriented techniques in comparison to the other techniques and for the co-construction of meaning. Current studies require replications with larger samples and experimental designs that study SFBT process in relationship to outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Psychotherapeutic Processes; Psychotherapy, Brief
PubMed: 27757976
DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12193 -
Psychiatry Research Jun 2021Various psychiatric disorders are treated with mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), although the efficacy of MBIs in patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Various psychiatric disorders are treated with mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), although the efficacy of MBIs in patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) is unclear. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the efficacy of MBIs on SAD symptoms. Systematic searches were performed in various databases, and 11 eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 single-arm trials were identified. The between-groups analysis of the 11 RCTs showed that Hedges' g = 0.00, while the within-group analysis showed a large pre-post effect size (g = 1.20).MBIs were superior to the no-treatment comparator (g = 0.89), equivalent to specific active treatment (g = -0.19), and less effective than evidence-based treatment (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapies) (g = -0.29).MBIs significantly alleviated depressive symptoms and improved mindfulness, quality of life, and self-compassion. Meta-regression analysis showed a dose-response relationship between the alleviation of SAD symptoms and the duration of the MBIs (β = 0.659). Follow-up analysis showed that the effects of MBIs on SAD persisted for 12 months (g = 0.231). An analysis of the 5 single-arm trials found that MBIs had a medium effect in alleviating SAD symptoms (g = 0.48). Future research is needed regarding the design of large RCTs of MBIs on SAD patients.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Mindfulness; Phobia, Social
PubMed: 33895444
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113935