-
The Lancet. Psychiatry Feb 2022The mental disorders included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 were depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, bipolar...
Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
BACKGROUND
The mental disorders included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 were depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, eating disorders, idiopathic developmental intellectual disability, and a residual category of other mental disorders. We aimed to measure the global, regional, and national prevalence, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYS), years lived with disability (YLDs), and years of life lost (YLLs) for mental disorders from 1990 to 2019.
METHODS
In this study, we assessed prevalence and burden estimates from GBD 2019 for 12 mental disorders, males and females, 23 age groups, 204 countries and territories, between 1990 and 2019. DALYs were estimated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs to premature mortality. We systematically reviewed PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, and the Global Health Data Exchange to obtain data on prevalence, incidence, remission, duration, severity, and excess mortality for each mental disorder. These data informed a Bayesian meta-regression analysis to estimate prevalence by disorder, age, sex, year, and location. Prevalence was multiplied by corresponding disability weights to estimate YLDs. Cause-specific deaths were compiled from mortality surveillance databases. The Cause of Death Ensemble modelling strategy was used to estimate death rate by age, sex, year, and location. The death rates were multiplied by the years of life expected to be remaining at death based on a normative life expectancy to estimate YLLs. Deaths and YLLs could be calculated only for anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, since these were the only mental disorders identified as underlying causes of death in GBD 2019.
FINDINGS
Between 1990 and 2019, the global number of DALYs due to mental disorders increased from 80·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 59·5-105·9) to 125·3 million (93·0-163·2), and the proportion of global DALYs attributed to mental disorders increased from 3·1% (95% UI 2·4-3·9) to 4·9% (3·9-6·1). Age-standardised DALY rates remained largely consistent between 1990 (1581·2 DALYs [1170·9-2061·4] per 100 000 people) and 2019 (1566·2 DALYs [1160·1-2042·8] per 100 000 people). YLDs contributed to most of the mental disorder burden, with 125·3 million YLDs (95% UI 93·0-163·2; 14·6% [12·2-16·8] of global YLDs) in 2019 attributable to mental disorders. Eating disorders accounted for 17 361·5 YLLs (95% UI 15 518·5-21 459·8). Globally, the age-standardised DALY rate for mental disorders was 1426·5 (95% UI 1056·4-1869·5) per 100 000 population among males and 1703·3 (1261·5-2237·8) per 100 000 population among females. Age-standardised DALY rates were highest in Australasia, Tropical Latin America, and high-income North America.
INTERPRETATION
GBD 2019 showed that mental disorders remained among the top ten leading causes of burden worldwide, with no evidence of global reduction in the burden since 1990. The estimated YLLs for mental disorders were extremely low and do not reflect premature mortality in individuals with mental disorders. Research to establish causal pathways between mental disorders and other fatal health outcomes is recommended so that this may be addressed within the GBD study. To reduce the burden of mental disorders, coordinated delivery of effective prevention and treatment programmes by governments and the global health community is imperative.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Department of Health, Australia.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Age Distribution; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Disability-Adjusted Life Years; Epidemiologic Studies; Female; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; Humans; Infant; Male; Mental Disorders; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Severity of Illness Index; Young Adult
PubMed: 35026139
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00395-3 -
JAMA Psychiatry Dec 2021Evidence of gut microbiota perturbations has accumulated for multiple psychiatric disorders, with microbiota signatures proposed as potential biomarkers. However, no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Evidence of gut microbiota perturbations has accumulated for multiple psychiatric disorders, with microbiota signatures proposed as potential biomarkers. However, no attempts have been made to evaluate the specificity of these across the range of psychiatric conditions.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct an umbrella and updated meta-analysis of gut microbiota alterations in general adult psychiatric populations and perform a within- and between-diagnostic comparison.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched up to February 2, 2021, for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original evidence.
STUDY SELECTION
A total of 59 case-control studies evaluating diversity or abundance of gut microbes in adult populations with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis and schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Between-group comparisons of relative abundance of gut microbes and beta diversity indices were extracted and summarized qualitatively. Random-effects meta-analyses on standardized mean difference (SMD) were performed for alpha diversity indices.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Alpha and beta diversity and relative abundance of gut microbes.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies provided data and were included in alpha diversity meta-analyses (n = 1519 patients, n = 1429 control participants). Significant decrease in microbial richness in patients compared with control participants were found (observed species SMD = -0.26; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.06; Chao1 SMD = -0.5; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.21); however, this was consistently decreased only in bipolar disorder when individual diagnoses were examined. There was a small decrease in phylogenetic diversity (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.001) and no significant differences in Shannon and Simpson indices. Differences in beta diversity were consistently observed only for major depressive disorder and psychosis and schizophrenia. Regarding relative abundance, little evidence of disorder specificity was found. Instead, a transdiagnostic pattern of microbiota signatures was found. Depleted levels of Faecalibacterium and Coprococcus and enriched levels of Eggerthella were consistently shared between major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis and schizophrenia, and anxiety, suggesting these disorders are characterized by a reduction of anti-inflammatory butyrate-producing bacteria, while pro-inflammatory genera are enriched. The confounding associations of region and medication were also evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that gut microbiota perturbations were associated with a transdiagnostic pattern with a depletion of certain anti-inflammatory butyrate-producing bacteria and an enrichment of pro-inflammatory bacteria in patients with depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and anxiety.
Topics: Dysbiosis; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Mental Disorders
PubMed: 34524405
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2573 -
Clinical Psychology Review Dec 2022Virtual reality (VR) technologies are playing an increasingly important role in the diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality (VR) technologies are playing an increasingly important role in the diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the current evidence regarding the use of VR in the diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders.
DATA SOURCE
Systematic literature searches via PubMed (last literature update: 9 of May 2022) were conducted for the following areas of psychopathology: Specific phobias, panic disorder and agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, dementia disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and addiction disorders.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
To be eligible, studies had to be published in English, to be peer-reviewed, to report original research data, to be VR-related, and to deal with one of the above-mentioned areas of psychopathology.
STUDY EVALUATION
For each study included, various study characteristics (including interventions and conditions, comparators, major outcomes and study designs) were retrieved and a risk of bias score was calculated based on predefined study quality criteria.
RESULTS
Across all areas of psychopathology, k = 9315 studies were inspected, of which k = 721 studies met the eligibility criteria. From these studies, 43.97% were considered assessment-related, 55.48% therapy-related, and 0.55% were mixed. The highest research activity was found for VR exposure therapy in anxiety disorders, PTSD and addiction disorders, where the most convincing evidence was found, as well as for cognitive trainings in dementia and social skill trainings in autism spectrum disorder.
CONCLUSION
While VR exposure therapy will likely find its way successively into regular patient care, there are also many other promising approaches, but most are not yet mature enough for clinical application.
REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO register CRD42020188436.
FUNDING
The review was funded by budgets from the University of Bonn. No third party funding was involved.
Topics: Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Phobic Disorders; Anxiety Disorders; Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy; Virtual Reality; Dementia
PubMed: 36356351
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102213 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2022Almost 70% of patients with mental disorders report sleep difficulties and 30% fulfill the criteria for insomnia disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Almost 70% of patients with mental disorders report sleep difficulties and 30% fulfill the criteria for insomnia disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line treatment for insomnia according to current treatment guidelines. Despite this circumstance, insomnia is frequently treated only pharmacologically especially in patients with mental disorders. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of CBT-I in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia on two outcome parameters: the severity of insomnia and mental health. The databases PubMed, CINHAL (Ebsco) und PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched for randomized controlled trials on adult patients with comorbid insomnia and any mental disorder comparing CBT-I to placebo, waitlist or treatment as usual using self-rating questionnaires as outcomes for either insomnia or mental health or both. The search resulted in 1994 records after duplicate removal of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for the meta-analysis. The comorbidities were depression (eight studies, 491 patients), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, four studies, 216 patients), alcohol dependency (three studies, 79 patients), bipolar disorder (one study, 58 patients), psychosis (one study, 50 patients) and mixed comorbidities within one study (five studies, 189 patients). The effect sizes for the reduction of insomnia severity post treatment were 0.5 (confidence interval, CI, 0.3-0.8) for patients with depression, 1.5 (CI 1.0-1.9) for patients with PTSD, 1.4 (CI 0.9-1.9) for patients with alcohol dependency, 1.2 (CI 0.8-1.7) for patients with psychosis/bipolar disorder, and 0.8 (CI 0.1-1.6) for patients with mixed comorbidities. Effect sizes for the reduction of insomnia severity were moderate to large at follow-up. Regarding the effects on comorbid symptom severity, effect sizes directly after treatment were 0.5 (CI 0.1-0.8) for depression, 1.3 (CI 0.6-1.9) for PTSD, 0.9 (CI 0.3-1.4) for alcohol dependency in only one study, 0.3 (CI -0.1 - 0.7, insignificant) for psychosis/bipolar, and 0.8 (CI 0.1-1.5) for mixed comorbidities. There were no significant effects on comorbid symptoms at follow-up. Together, these significant, stable medium to large effects indicate that CBT-I is an effective treatment for patients with insomnia and a comorbid mental disorder, especially depression, PTSD and alcohol dependency. CBT-I is also an effective add-on treatment with the aim of improving mental health in patients with depression, PTSD, and symptom severity in outpatients with mixed diagnoses. Thus, in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia, given the many side effects of medication, CBT-I should be considered as a first-line treatment.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Comorbidity; Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35240417
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101597 -
Molecular Psychiatry Apr 2022The emerging understanding of gut microbiota as 'metabolic machinery' influencing many aspects of physiology has gained substantial attention in the field of psychiatry.... (Review)
Review
The emerging understanding of gut microbiota as 'metabolic machinery' influencing many aspects of physiology has gained substantial attention in the field of psychiatry. This is largely due to the many overlapping pathophysiological mechanisms associated with both the potential functionality of the gut microbiota and the biological mechanisms thought to be underpinning mental disorders. In this systematic review, we synthesised the current literature investigating differences in gut microbiota composition in people with the major psychiatric disorders, major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ), compared to 'healthy' controls. We also explored gut microbiota composition across disorders in an attempt to elucidate potential commonalities in the microbial signatures associated with these mental disorders. Following the PRISMA guidelines, databases were searched from inception through to December 2021. We identified 44 studies (including a total of 2510 psychiatric cases and 2407 controls) that met inclusion criteria, of which 24 investigated gut microbiota composition in MDD, seven investigated gut microbiota composition in BD, and 15 investigated gut microbiota composition in SZ. Our syntheses provide no strong evidence for a difference in the number or distribution (α-diversity) of bacteria in those with a mental disorder compared to controls. However, studies were relatively consistent in reporting differences in overall community composition (β-diversity) in people with and without mental disorders. Our syntheses also identified specific bacterial taxa commonly associated with mental disorders, including lower levels of bacterial genera that produce short-chain fatty acids (e.g. butyrate), higher levels of lactic acid-producing bacteria, and higher levels of bacteria associated with glutamate and GABA metabolism. We also observed substantial heterogeneity across studies with regards to methodologies and reporting. Further prospective and experimental research using new tools and robust guidelines hold promise for improving our understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in mental and brain health and the development of interventions based on modification of gut microbiota.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Brain; Depressive Disorder, Major; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35194166
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01456-3 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Dec 2019Medicinal cannabinoids, including medicinal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medicinal cannabinoids, including medicinal cannabis and pharmaceutical cannabinoids and their synthetic derivatives, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), have been suggested to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders. We analysed the available evidence to ascertain the effectiveness and safety of all types of medicinal cannabinoids in treating symptoms of various mental disorders.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2018. We also searched for unpublished or ongoing studies on ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. We considered all studies examining any type and formulation of a medicinal cannabinoid in adults (≥18 years) for treating depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis, either as the primary condition or secondary to other medical conditions. We placed no restrictions on language, publication status, or study type (ie, both experimental and observational study designs were included). Primary outcomes were remission from and changes in symptoms of these mental disorders. The safety of medicinal cannabinoids for these mental disorders was also examined. Evidence from randomised controlled trials was synthesised as odds ratios (ORs) for disorder remission, adverse events, and withdrawals and as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, via random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017059372, CRD42017059373, CRD42017059376, CRD42017064996, and CRD42018102977).
FINDINGS
83 eligible studies (40 randomised controlled trials, n=3067) were included: 42 for depression (23 randomised controlled trials; n=2551), 31 for anxiety (17 randomised controlled trials; n=605), eight for Tourette syndrome (two randomised controlled trials; n=36), three for ADHD (one randomised controlled trial; n=30), 12 for post-traumatic stress disorder (one randomised controlled trial; n=10), and 11 for psychosis (six randomised controlled trials; n=281). Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) improved anxiety symptoms among individuals with other medical conditions (primarily chronic non-cancer pain and multiple sclerosis; SMD -0·25 [95% CI -0·49 to -0·01]; seven studies; n=252), although the evidence GRADE was very low. Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) worsened negative symptoms of psychosis in a single study (SMD 0·36 [95% CI 0·10 to 0·62]; n=24). Pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) did not significantly affect any other primary outcomes for the mental disorders examined but did increase the number of people who had adverse events (OR 1·99 [95% CI 1·20 to 3·29]; ten studies; n=1495) and withdrawals due to adverse events (2·78 [1·59 to 4·86]; 11 studies; n=1621) compared with placebo across all mental disorders examined. Few randomised controlled trials examined the role of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis.
INTERPRETATION
There is scarce evidence to suggest that cannabinoids improve depressive disorders and symptoms, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, or psychosis. There is very low quality evidence that pharmaceutical THC (with or without CBD) leads to a small improvement in symptoms of anxiety among individuals with other medical conditions. There remains insufficient evidence to provide guidance on the use of cannabinoids for treating mental disorders within a regulatory framework. Further high-quality studies directly examining the effect of cannabinoids on treating mental disorders are needed.
FUNDING
Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia; Commonwealth Department of Health, Australia; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and US National Institutes of Health.
Topics: Anxiety; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Australia; Cannabinoids; Chronic Pain; Depression; Humans; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Tourette Syndrome
PubMed: 31672337
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30401-8 -
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2019Existing WHO estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders in emergency settings are more than a decade old and do not reflect modern methods to gather existing data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Existing WHO estimates of the prevalence of mental disorders in emergency settings are more than a decade old and do not reflect modern methods to gather existing data and derive estimates. We sought to update WHO estimates for the prevalence of mental disorders in conflict-affected settings and calculate the burden per 1000 population.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we updated a previous systematic review by searching MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, and Embase for studies published between Jan 1, 2000, and Aug 9, 2017, on the prevalence of depression, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. We also searched the grey literature, such as government reports, conference proceedings, and dissertations, to source additional data, and we searched datasets from existing literature reviews of the global prevalence of depression and anxiety and reference lists from the studies that were identified. We applied the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting and used Bayesian meta-regression techniques that adjust for predictors of mental disorders to calculate new point prevalence estimates with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) in settings that had experienced conflict less than 10 years previously.
FINDINGS
We estimated that the prevalence of mental disorders (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) was 22·1% (95% UI 18·8-25·7) at any point in time in the conflict-affected populations assessed. The mean comorbidity-adjusted, age-standardised point prevalence was 13·0% (95% UI 10·3-16·2) for mild forms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder and 4·0% (95% UI 2·9-5·5) for moderate forms. The mean comorbidity-adjusted, age-standardised point prevalence for severe disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, severe anxiety, and severe post-traumatic stress disorder) was 5·1% (95% UI 4·0-6·5). As only two studies provided epidemiological data for psychosis in conflict-affected populations, existing Global Burden of Disease Study estimates for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were applied in these estimates for conflict-affected populations.
INTERPRETATION
The burden of mental disorders is high in conflict-affected populations. Given the large numbers of people in need and the humanitarian imperative to reduce suffering, there is an urgent need to implement scalable mental health interventions to address this burden.
FUNDING
WHO; Queensland Department of Health, Australia; and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Humans; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Schizophrenia; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Warfare; World Health Organization
PubMed: 31200992
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30934-1 -
PLoS Medicine May 2021The prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide...
BACKGROUND
The prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Electronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Promotion; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health
PubMed: 33974641
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003606 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Aug 2020Virtual reality (VR) is being used more and more often as a therapeutic tool in psychology or psychiatry. In recent years, VR interventions appear more extensively also...
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality (VR) is being used more and more often as a therapeutic tool in psychology or psychiatry. In recent years, VR interventions appear more extensively also in disorders such as depression, anxiety and phobia. However, there has yet to be a comprehensive synthesis and critical review of the literature to identify future directions to advance the field in this area.
OBJECTIVES
To broadly characterize the literature to date on the application of VR in psychiatric disorders by conducting a systematic review of reviews, describe the limitations of existing research, suggest avenues for future research to address gaps in the current literature and provide practical recommendations for incorporating VR into various treatments for psychiatric disorders.
METHODS
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for reviews on VR use in psychiatric disorders (e.g. various pain perceptions, post-traumatic stress disorder, phobias, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, psychosis, depression). The methodological quality of each literature review was assessed using AMSTAR.
RESULTS
The original search identified 848 reviews, of which 70 were included in the systematic review of reviews. Broadly, the literature indicates that various VR interventions could be useful in different psychiatric disorders.
CONCLUSION
This study provides evidence supporting the positive impact of VR therapy in psychiatric disorders. However, the impact is defined differently according to the studied area. Nevertheless, due to the continuous development of VR hardware and software, it is essential to conduct further research in the area of psychiatric disorders, especially as no review has concluded that VR does not work.
Topics: Humans; Mental Disorders; Pain Management; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 32951730
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102480 -
PLoS Medicine Aug 2020Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Psychological and pharmacological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental health problems following complex traumatic events: Systematic review and component network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed to complex traumatic events are at risk of not only posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but also other mental health comorbidities. Whereas evidence-based psychological and pharmacological treatments are effective for single-event PTSD, it is not known if people who have experienced complex traumatic events can benefit and tolerate these commonly available treatments. Furthermore, it is not known which components of psychological interventions are most effective for managing PTSD in this population. We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for managing mental health problems in people exposed to complex traumatic events.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of psychological and pharmacological treatments for PTSD symptoms in people exposed to complex traumatic events, published up to 25 October 2019. We adopted a nondiagnostic approach and included studies of adults who have experienced complex trauma. Complex-trauma subgroups included veterans; childhood sexual abuse; war-affected; refugees; and domestic violence. The primary outcome was reduction in PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality, and positive and negative affect. We included 116 studies, of which 50 were conducted in hospital settings, 24 were delivered in community settings, seven were delivered in military clinics for veterans or active military personnel, five were conducted in refugee camps, four used remote delivery via web-based or telephone platforms, four were conducted in specialist trauma clinics, two were delivered in home settings, and two were delivered in primary care clinics; clinical setting was not reported in 17 studies. Ninety-four RCTs, for a total of 6,158 participants, were included in meta-analyses across the primary and secondary outcomes; 18 RCTs for a total of 933 participants were included in the component network meta-analysis. The mean age of participants in the included RCTs was 42.6 ± 9.3 years, and 42% were male. Nine non-RCTs were included. The mean age of participants in the non-RCTs was 40.6 ± 9.4 years, and 47% were male. The average length of follow-up across all included studies at posttreatment for the primary outcome was 11.5 weeks. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that psychological interventions reduce PTSD symptoms more than inactive control (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.63) and active control (k-9; n = 662; SMD = -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14) at posttreatment and also compared with inactive control at 6-month follow-up (k = 10; n = 738; SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.08). Psychological interventions reduced depressive symptoms (k = 31; n = 2,075; SMD = -0.87, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.63; I2 = 82.7%, p = 0.000) and anxiety (k = 15; n = 1,395; SMD = -1.03, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.61; p = 0.000) at posttreatment compared with inactive control. Sleep quality was significantly improved at posttreatment by psychological interventions compared with inactive control (k = 3; n = 111; SMD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.51; p = 0.245). There were no significant differences between psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k = 6; n = 401; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.021). Antipsychotic medicine (k = 5; n = 364; SMD = -0.45; -0.85 to -0.05; p = 0.085) and prazosin (k = 3; n = 110; SMD = -0.52; -1.03 to -0.02; p = 0.182) were effective in reducing PTSD symptoms. Phase-based psychological interventions that included skills-based strategies along with trauma-focused strategies were the most promising interventions for emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Compared with pharmacological interventions, we observed that psychological interventions were associated with greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms and improved sleep quality. Sensitivity analysis showed that psychological interventions were acceptable with lower dropout, even in studies rated at low risk of attrition bias. Trauma-focused psychological interventions were superior to non-trauma-focused interventions across trauma subgroups for PTSD symptoms, but effects among veterans and war-affected populations were significantly reduced. The network meta-analysis showed that multicomponent interventions that included cognitive restructuring and imaginal exposure were the most effective for reducing PTSD symptoms (k = 17; n = 1,077; mean difference = -37.95, 95% CI -60.84 to -15.16). Our use of a non-diagnostic inclusion strategy may have overlooked certain complex-trauma populations with severe and enduring mental health comorbidities. Additionally, the relative contribution of skills-based intervention components was not feasibly evaluated in the network meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that trauma-focused psychological interventions are effective for managing mental health problems and comorbidities in people exposed to complex trauma. Multicomponent interventions, which can include phase-based approaches, were the most effective treatment package for managing PTSD in complex trauma. Establishing optimal ways to deliver multicomponent psychological interventions for people exposed to complex traumatic events is a research and clinical priority.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Comorbidity; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 32813696
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003262