-
Frontiers in Psychology 2023The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health and academic performance of university students worldwide. Anxiety is one of the most commonly...
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health and academic performance of university students worldwide. Anxiety is one of the most commonly reported mental health issues among this population, but its relationship with academic performance during the pandemic has not been fully explored.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA-P guidelines to synthesize existing research on the relationship between anxiety and academic performance in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four databases were searched (PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus) for articles published between December 2019 and June 2022, and studies from five different countries were included in the analysis. A heterogeneity test was performed, and a fixed-effects model was used to calculate the main results.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis revealed a negative correlation between university students' anxiety and academic performance ( = -0.211, = 5, = 1,205). Subgroup analysis found no significant regulatory effects for the year of publication, country development level, student type, or anxiety type. The results suggest that negative emotions induced by the pandemic are the most significant factor linking anxiety to poor academic performance.
DISCUSSION
During pandemics with severe global consequences, such as COVID-19, interventions against and for the prevention of university students' negative emotions are important ways to improve university students' mental health and academic achievement.
PubMed: 36998363
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1018558 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental...
BACKGROUND
There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.
MAIN RESULTS
Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.
Topics: Humans; Anxiety; Developing Countries; Health Promotion; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37873968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014722.pub2 -
JAMA Psychiatry Apr 2022Computational psychiatry studies have investigated how reinforcement learning may be different in individuals with mood and anxiety disorders compared with control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Computational psychiatry studies have investigated how reinforcement learning may be different in individuals with mood and anxiety disorders compared with control individuals, but results are inconsistent.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether there are consistent differences in reinforcement-learning parameters between patients with depression or anxiety and control individuals.
DATA SOURCES
Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar searches were performed between November 15, 2019, and December 6, 2019, and repeated on December 3, 2020, and February 23, 2021, with keywords (reinforcement learning) AND (computational OR model) AND (depression OR anxiety OR mood).
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were included if they fit reinforcement-learning models to human choice data from a cognitive task with rewards or punishments, had a case-control design including participants with mood and/or anxiety disorders and healthy control individuals, and included sufficient information about all parameters in the models.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Articles were assessed for inclusion according to MOOSE guidelines. Participant-level parameters were extracted from included articles, and a conventional meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Subsequently, these parameters were used to simulate choice performance for each participant on benchmarking tasks in a simulation meta-analysis. Models were fitted, parameters were extracted using bayesian model averaging, and differences between patients and control individuals were examined. Overall effect sizes across analytic strategies were inspected.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were estimated reinforcement-learning parameters (learning rate, inverse temperature, reward learning rate, and punishment learning rate).
RESULTS
A total of 27 articles were included (3085 participants, 1242 of whom had depression and/or anxiety). In the conventional meta-analysis, patients showed lower inverse temperature than control individuals (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.215; 95% CI, -0.354 to -0.077), although no parameters were common across all studies, limiting the ability to infer differences. In the simulation meta-analysis, patients showed greater punishment learning rates (SMD, 0.107; 95% CI, 0.107 to 0.108) and slightly lower reward learning rates (SMD, -0.021; 95% CI, -0.022 to -0.020) relative to control individuals. The simulation meta-analysis showed no meaningful difference in inverse temperature between patients and control individuals (SMD, 0.003; 95% CI, 0.002 to 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The simulation meta-analytic approach introduced in this article for inferring meta-group differences from heterogeneous computational psychiatry studies indicated elevated punishment learning rates in patients compared with control individuals. This difference may promote and uphold negative affective bias symptoms and hence constitute a potential mechanistic treatment target for mood and anxiety disorders.
Topics: Affect; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Bayes Theorem; Humans; Reward
PubMed: 35234834
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0051 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a rare, chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease with a prevalence varying from 4.3 to 150 people in 100,000, or approximately five... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a rare, chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease with a prevalence varying from 4.3 to 150 people in 100,000, or approximately five million people worldwide. Systemic manifestations frequently include internal organ involvement, a characteristic malar rash on the face, pain in joints and muscles, and profound fatigue. Exercise is purported to be beneficial for people with SLE. For this review, we focused on studies that examined all types of structured exercise as an adjunctive therapy in the management of SLE.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of structured exercise as adjunctive therapy for adults with SLE compared with usual pharmacological care, usual pharmacological care plus placebo and usual pharmacological care plus non-pharmacological care.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological treatment in SLE compared with placebo, usual pharmacological care alone and another non-pharmacological treatment. Major outcomes were fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, quality of life, pain, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to any reason, including any adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. fatigue, 2. functional capacity, 3. disease activity, 4. quality of life, 5. pain, 6. serious adverse events, and 7. withdrawals due to any reason. Our minor outcomes were 8. responder rate, 9. aerobic fitness, 10. depression, and 11. anxiety. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. The primary comparison was exercise compared with placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies (540 participants) in this review. Studies compared exercise as an adjunct to usual pharmacological care (antimalarials, immunosuppressants, and oral glucocorticoids) with usual pharmacological care plus placebo (one study); usual pharmacological care (six studies); and another non-pharmacological treatment such as relaxation therapy (seven studies). Most studies had selection bias, and all studies had performance and detection bias. We downgraded the evidence for all comparisons because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus placebo plus usual pharmacological care Evidence from a single small study (17 participants) that compared whole body vibration exercise to whole body placebo vibration exercise (vibrations switched off) indicated that exercise may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report disease activity, quality of life, and serious adverse events. The study measured fatigue using the self-reported Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), scale 0 to 52; lower score means less fatigue. People who did not exercise rated their fatigue at 38 points and those who did exercise rated their fatigue at 33 points (mean difference (MD) 5 points lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.29 lower to 3.29 higher). The study measured functional capacity using the self-reported 36-item Short Form health questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Function domain, scale 0 to 100; higher score means better function. People who did not exercise rated their functional capacity at 70 points and those who did exercise rated their functional capacity at 67.5 points (MD 2.5 points lower, 95% CI 23.78 lower to 18.78 higher). The study measured pain using the SF-36 Pain domain, scale 0 to 100; lower scores mean less pain. People who did not exercise rated their pain at 43 points and those who did exercise rated their pain at 34 points (MD 9 points lower, 95% CI 28.88 lower to 10.88 higher). More participants from the exercise group (3/11, 27%) withdrew from the study than the placebo group (1/10, 10%) (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 22.16). Exercise plus usual pharmacological care versus usual pharmacological care alone The addition of exercise to usual pharmacological care may have little to no effect on fatigue, functional capacity, and disease activity (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the addition of exercise improves pain (very low-certainty evidence), or results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events and quality of life were not reported. Exercise plus usual care versus another non-pharmacological intervention such as receiving information about the disease or relaxation therapy Compared with education or relaxation therapy, exercise may reduce fatigue slightly (low-certainty evidence), may improve functional capacity (low-certainty evidence), probably results in little to no difference in disease activity (moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in pain (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise results in fewer or more withdrawals (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and serious adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to low- to very low-certainty evidence, we are not confident on the benefits of exercise on fatigue, functional capacity, disease activity, and pain, compared with placebo, usual care, or advice and relaxation therapy. Harms data were not well reported.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Exercise; Fatigue; Exercise Therapy; Pain; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37073886
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014816.pub2 -
European Journal of Public Health Aug 2020Depression and anxiety are associated with adverse outcomes in educational achievements and economic performances. Moreover, the prevalence of these disorders is...
BACKGROUND
Depression and anxiety are associated with adverse outcomes in educational achievements and economic performances. Moreover, the prevalence of these disorders is unequally distributed among different population subgroups. Our objective is to investigate whether the economic consequences of depression and anxiety differ between population subgroups of different gender, socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity and age, in Europe.
METHODS
A systematic scoping literature review was performed to identify studies where exposure to depression or anxiety was identified at baseline and consequences in education, sickness absence, disability pension, unemployment and income/earnings were measured at follow-up.
RESULTS
Seventeen articles were included in this review and most of these were conducted in the Nordic countries. The consequences of depression and anxiety were stratified by gender in most of the articles. However, only in a few studies, the findings were stratified by SES, age and ethnicity. The negative consequences of depression in educational performance, disability pension and income are larger for men compared to women. Moreover, low SES individuals have more depression- and anxiety-related absence from work than high SES individuals.
CONCLUSION
Our findings imply that the economic consequences of depression differ between population subgroups in Europe. This could have an impact on social stratification, shifting people who experience mental ill-health to lower SES groups or reinforcing an already disadvantaged position. More research is needed on unequal economic consequences of depression and anxiety in different population subgroups in Europe.
Topics: Anxiety; Depression; Europe; Female; Humans; Income; Male; Scandinavian and Nordic Countries; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 31302703
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz127 -
Clinical Psychology Review Nov 2022Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first line of treatment for several mental health disorders. However, not all patients show clinical improvements after receiving CBT. Machine learning allows inferences at the individual level and therefore is a promising approach for predicting who will and will not benefit from CBT. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all studies that used machine learning to predict clinical response to CBT. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to estimate an overall performance accuracy across all studies. Twenty-four studies (N = 7497) were identified, covering five diagnostic groups: Major Depressive Disorder (k = 4), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD, k = 5), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (k = 2), Anxiety Disorders (AD, k = 7), Substance Use Disorders (k = 4) and two transdiagnostic models. Studies used clinical, neuroimaging, cognitive and genetic data, or a combination of these, as predictors. The overall performance accuracy across studies was 74.0% [70.0-77.8]. Accuracies differed significantly between diagnostic groups and was highest in PTSD (78.7%, 69.1-87.0), AD (77.6%, 67.5-86.4) and OCD (76.1%, 67.3-84.0). Some studies were at a high risk of bias due to how the outcome was operationalised and/or how the analyses were conducted/reported. There are many challenges to overcome before these promising results can be applied to real-world clinical practice.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Machine Learning; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
PubMed: 35995023
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102193 -
Neurosurgical Review Dec 2021Preoperative anxiety is a common reaction exhibited by up to 80% of patients who are scheduled for surgical procedures and characterized by psychological and physical... (Review)
Review
Preoperative anxiety is a common reaction exhibited by up to 80% of patients who are scheduled for surgical procedures and characterized by psychological and physical changes which may affect their perioperative period. Our aim is to report the most up-to-date evidence on preoperative anxiety in brain surgery patients through a systematic analysis of the studies produced in the last decades. We performed a systematic review of literature by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Data were extracted using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome framework and critically analyzed. PRISMA guidelines were applied, and the risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Risk of bias (RoB) 2 and ROBINS tools, as was the methodological quality, following GRADE criteria. We included 27 articles, accounting for 2558 patients in twelve different countries. The prevalence of preoperative anxiety ranged from 17 up to 89%, higher in female patients. Preoperative anxiety was associated with lower quality of life and cognitive performance, higher need for information, poorer memory and attention, longer hospitalization, depressive symptoms, and increase of physical disability; no correlation with survival rate was found. Seven randomized controlled trials attested the efficacy of acupuncture, music therapy, virtual reality, and pharmacological support in lowering anxiety levels. Preoperative anxiety is a common phenomenon that could negatively affect the perioperative period of brain surgery patients: this is something that should not be neglected to achieve better care through early prevention and optimal management.
Topics: Anxiety; Brain; Female; Humans; Music Therapy; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33608828
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-021-01498-1 -
Journal of Public Health (Oxford,... Dec 2022Introduction Healthcare workers' work performance and mental health are associated with positive mental health outcomes and directly related to increased productivity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Introduction Healthcare workers' work performance and mental health are associated with positive mental health outcomes and directly related to increased productivity and decreased disability costs. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify factors associated with work performance of healthcare workers during a pandemic and conducted a meta-analysis of the prevalence of mental health outcomes in this context. Primary papers were collected and analysed using the Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome framework and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. To critically appraise the studies included in the review, we used the AXIS appraisal tool to assess each cross-sectional study's quality. Results The study identified nine factors associated with the work performance and mental health of healthcare workers, including experiencing feelings of depression, anxiety, having inadequate support, experiencing occupational stress, decreased productivity, lack of workplace preparedness, financial concerns associated with changes in income and daily living, fear of transmission and burnout/fatigue. Conclusion There is a rapidly rising need to address the work performance and mental health of healthcare workers providing timely care to patients. Regular and sustained interventions, including the use of information and communication technologies such as telehealth, are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pandemics; Mental Health; Work Performance; Cross-Sectional Studies; Health Personnel
PubMed: 34056663
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab173 -
Molecular Autism Jan 2024Numerous interventions for irritability in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been investigated. We aimed to appraise the magnitude of pharmacological and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Numerous interventions for irritability in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been investigated. We aimed to appraise the magnitude of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for irritability in ASD without any restrictions in terms of eligible interventions.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science until April 15, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel design that examined the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of irritability in patients of any age with ASD without any restrictions in terms of eligible interventions. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis by pooling effect sizes as Hedges' g. We classified assessed interventions as follows: pharmacological monotherapy, risperidone plus adjuvant therapy versus risperidone monotherapy, non-pharmacological intervention, and dietary intervention. We utilized the Cochrane tool to evaluate the risk of bias in each study and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each meta-analyzed intervention.
RESULTS
Out of 5640 references, we identified 60 eligible articles with 45 different kinds of interventions, including 3531 participants, of which 80.9% were males (mean age [SD] = 8.79 [3.85]). For pharmacological monotherapy, risperidone (Hedges' g - 0.857, 95% CI - 1.263 to - 0.451, certainty of evidence: high) and aripiprazole (Hedges' g - 0.559, 95% CI - 0.767 to - 0.351, certainty of evidence: high) outperformed placebo. Among the non-pharmacological interventions, parent training (Hedges' g - 0.893, 95% CI - 1.184 to - 0.602, certainty of evidence: moderate) showed a significant result. None of the meta-analyzed interventions yielded significant effects among risperidone + adjuvant therapy and dietary supplementation. However, several novel molecules in augmentation to risperidone outperformed risperidone monotherapy, yet from one RCT each.
LIMITATIONS
First, various tools have been utilized to measure the irritability in ASD, which may contribute to the heterogeneity of the outcomes. Second, meta-analyses for each intervention included only a small number of studies and participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Only risperidone, aripiprazole among pharmacological interventions, and parent training among non-pharmacological interventions can be recommended for irritability in ASD. As an augmentation to risperidone, several novel treatments show promising effects, but further RCTs are needed to replicate findings. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42021243965.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; GRADE Approach; Aripiprazole; Risperidone; Autism Spectrum Disorder
PubMed: 38263251
DOI: 10.1186/s13229-024-00585-6