-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Over the decades, a variety of psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder (BPD) have been developed. This review updates and replaces an earlier review (Stoffers-Winterling 2012).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of psychological therapies for people with BPD.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases and four trials registers. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for additional data from published and unpublished trials, and handsearched relevant journals. We did not restrict the search by year of publication, language or type of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different psychotherapeutic interventions with treatment-as-usual (TAU; which included various kinds of psychotherapy), waiting list, no treatment or active treatments in samples of all ages, in any setting, with a formal diagnosis of BPD. The primary outcomes were BPD symptom severity, self-harm, suicide-related outcomes, and psychosocial functioning. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including individual BPD symptoms, as well as attrition and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We performed data analysis using Review Manager 5 and quantified the statistical reliability of the data using Trial Sequential Analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 75 randomised controlled trials (4507 participants), predominantly involving females with mean ages ranging from 14.8 to 45.7 years. More than 16 different kinds of psychotherapy were included, mostly dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and mentalisation-based treatment (MBT). The comparator interventions included treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list, and other active treatments. Treatment duration ranged from one to 36 months. Psychotherapy versus TAU Psychotherapy reduced BPD symptom severity, compared to TAU; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.33; 22 trials, 1244 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -3.6 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.08) on the Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (range 0 to 36), a clinically relevant reduction in BPD symptom severity (minimal clinical relevant difference (MIREDIF) on this scale is -3.0 points). Psychotherapy may be more effective at reducing self-harm compared to TAU (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.14; 13 trials, 616 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.82 (95% CI -1.25 to 0.35) on the Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory Scale (range 0 to 34). The MIREDIF of -1.25 points was not reached. Suicide-related outcomes improved compared to TAU (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; 13 trials, 666 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -0.11 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.034) on the Suicidal Attempt Self Injury Interview. The MIREDIF of -0.17 points was not reached. Compared to TAU, psychotherapy may result in an improvement in psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.22; 22 trials, 1314 participants; low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.8 (95% CI -4.25 to -1.38), on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (range 0 to 100). The MIREDIF of -4.0 points was not reached. Our additional Trial Sequential Analysis on all primary outcomes reaching significance found that the required information size was reached in all cases. A subgroup analysis comparing the different types of psychotherapy compared to TAU showed no clear evidence of a difference for BPD severity and psychosocial functioning. Psychotherapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared to TAU but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.17; 22 trials, 1568 participants; very low-quality evidence), corresponding to a MD of -2.45 points on the Hamilton Depression Scale (range 0 to 50). The MIREDIF of -3.0 points was not reached. BPD-specific psychotherapy did not reduce attrition compared with TAU. Adverse effects were unclear due to too few data. Psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment Greater improvements in BPD symptom severity (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 3 trials, 161 participants), psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.11; 5 trials, 219 participants), and depression (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -2.21 to -0.34, 6 trials, 239 participants) were observed in participants receiving psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment (all low-quality evidence). No evidence of a difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. Individual treatment approaches DBT and MBT have the highest numbers of primary trials, with DBT as subject of one-third of all included trials, followed by MBT with seven RCTs. Compared to TAU, DBT was more effective at reducing BPD severity (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; 3 trials, 149 participants), self-harm (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 7 trials, 376 participants) and improving psychosocial functioning (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.03; 6 trials, 225 participants). MBT appears to be more effective than TAU at reducing self-harm (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.80; 3 trials, 252 participants), suicidality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04, 0.30, 3 trials, 218 participants) and depression (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.05, 4 trials, 333 participants). All findings are based on low-quality evidence. For secondary outcomes see review text.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our assessments showed beneficial effects on all primary outcomes in favour of BPD-tailored psychotherapy compared with TAU. However, only the outcome of BPD severity reached the MIREDIF-defined cut-off for a clinically meaningful improvement. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates between the different types of therapies (compared to TAU) . The pooled analysis of psychotherapy versus waiting list or no treatment found significant improvement on BPD severity, psychosocial functioning and depression at end of treatment, but these findings were based on low-quality evidence, and the true magnitude of these effects is uncertain. No clear evidence of difference was found for self-harm and suicide-related outcomes. However, compared to TAU, we observed effects in favour of DBT for BPD severity, self-harm and psychosocial functioning and, for MBT, on self-harm and suicidality at end of treatment, but these were all based on low-quality evidence. Therefore, we are unsure whether these effects would alter with the addition of more data.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Borderline Personality Disorder; Depression; Dialectical Behavior Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Mentalization; Middle Aged; Patient Dropouts; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self-Injurious Behavior; Treatment Outcome; Waiting Lists; Young Adult; Suicide Prevention
PubMed: 32368793
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012955.pub2 -
JAMA Psychiatry Mar 2021The sequential model emerged from the awareness that the persistence of residual symptoms and the frequent occurrence of psychiatric comorbidity were both associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The sequential model emerged from the awareness that the persistence of residual symptoms and the frequent occurrence of psychiatric comorbidity were both associated with poor long-term outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD).
OBJECTIVE
To conduct an updated meta-analysis to examine the association of the sequential combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy with reduced risk of relapse and recurrence in MDD.
DATA SOURCES
Keyword searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception of each database through November 2019. Reference lists from relevant studies were examined using the following keywords: sequential treatment, drugs and psychotherapy, combined treatment, continuation or maintenance, relapse or recurrence and prevention, and depress* or major depress*, selecting adults and randomized controlled trials as additional limits. Authors of selected articles were contacted if needed.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials examining the effectiveness of the sequential use of psychotherapy following response to acute-phase pharmacotherapy in the treatment of adult remitted patients with MDD were selected independently by 2 reviewers.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The methods used fulfilled the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data extraction and methodologic quality assessment were conducted independently by the reviewers. Examination of the pooled results was performed based on the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between study results and likelihood of significant publication bias were assessed. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions were also run.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome measures were relapse or recurrence rates of MDD, as defined by study investigators, at the longest available follow-up.
RESULTS
Seventeen randomized clinical trials met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, with 1 study yielding 2 comparisons (2283 patients overall, with 1208 patients in a sequential treatment arm and 1075 in a control arm). The pooled risk ratio for relapse/recurrence of MDD was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.94), suggesting a relative advantage in preventing relapse/recurrence for the sequential combination of treatments compared with control conditions.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that the sequential integration of psychotherapy following response to acute-phase pharmacotherapy, alone or combined with antidepressant medication, was associated with reduced risk of relapse and recurrence in MDD. The preventive value of the sequential strategy relies on abatement of residual symptoms and/or increase in psychological well-being. The steps for implementing the sequential approach in remitted patients with recurrent MDD are provided.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Psychotherapy; Time Factors
PubMed: 33237285
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3650 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2020For people with diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control, motivation to perform self-management is important. The research team wanted to determine whether...
BACKGROUND
For people with diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control, motivation to perform self-management is important. The research team wanted to determine whether or not psychological interventions are clinically effective and cost-effective in increasing self-management and improving glycaemic control.
OBJECTIVES
The first objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and people with type 2 diabetes mellitus so that they have improved (1) glycated haemoglobin levels, (2) diabetes self-management and (3) quality of life, and fewer depressive symptoms. The second objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions.
DATA SOURCES
The following databases were accessed (searches took place between 2003 and 2016): MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. Diabetes conference abstracts, reference lists of included studies and Clinicaltrials.gov trial registry were also searched.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic review, aggregate meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, individual patient data meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness modelling were all used. Risk of bias of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. 2011;:d5928).
DESIGN
Systematic review, meta-analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and patient and public consultation were all used.
SETTING
Settings in primary or secondary care were included.
PARTICIPANTS
Adolescents and children with type 1 diabetes mellitus and adults with types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus were included.
INTERVENTIONS
The interventions used were psychological treatments, including and not restricted to cognitive-behavioural therapy, counselling, family therapy and psychotherapy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Glycated haemoglobin levels, self-management behaviours, body mass index, blood pressure levels, depressive symptoms and quality of life were all used as outcome measures.
RESULTS
A total of 96 studies were included in the systematic review ( = 18,659 participants). In random-effects meta-analysis, data on glycated haemoglobin levels were available for seven studies conducted in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus ( = 851 participants) that demonstrated a pooled mean difference of -0.13 (95% confidence interval -0.33 to 0.07), a non-significant decrease in favour of psychological treatment; 18 studies conducted in adolescents/children with type 1 diabetes mellitus ( = 2583 participants) that demonstrated a pooled mean difference of 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.18 to 0.18), indicating no change; and 49 studies conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus ( = 12,009 participants) that demonstrated a pooled mean difference of -0.21 (95% confidence interval -0.31 to -0.10), equivalent to reduction in glycated haemoglobin levels of -0.33% or ≈3.5 mmol/mol. For type 2 diabetes mellitus, there was evidence that psychological interventions improved dietary behaviour and quality of life but not blood pressure, body mass index or depressive symptoms. The results of the network meta-analysis, which considers direct and indirect effects of multiple treatment comparisons, suggest that, for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (7 studies; 968 participants), attention control and cognitive-behavioural therapy are clinically effective and cognitive-behavioural therapy is cost-effective. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (49 studies; 12,409 participants), cognitive-behavioural therapy and counselling are effective and cognitive-behavioural therapy is potentially cost-effective. The results of the individual patient data meta-analysis for adolescents/children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (9 studies; 1392 participants) suggest that there were main effects for age and diabetes duration. For adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (19 studies; 3639 participants), baseline glycated haemoglobin levels moderated treatment outcome.
LIMITATIONS
Aggregate meta-analysis was limited to glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus. It was not possible to model cost-effectiveness for adolescents/children with type 1 diabetes mellitus and modelling for type 2 diabetes mellitus involved substantial uncertainty. The individual patient data meta-analysis included only 40-50% of studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that psychological treatments offer minimal clinical benefit in improving glycated haemoglobin levels for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, there was no evidence of benefit compared with control interventions in improving glycated haemoglobin levels for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
FUTURE WORK
Future work should consider the competency of the interventionists delivering a therapy and psychological approaches that are matched to a person and their life course.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033619.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Motivation; Psychosocial Intervention; Psychotherapy; Quality of Life; Self-Management
PubMed: 32568666
DOI: 10.3310/hta24280 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of psychological interventions for chronic low back pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review with network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL from database inception to 31 January 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with any comparison intervention in adults with chronic, non-specific low back pain. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and confidence in the evidence. Primary outcomes were physical function and pain intensity. A random effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach was performed at post-intervention (from the end of treatment to <2 months post-intervention); and at short term (≥2 to <6 months post-intervention), mid-term (≥6 to <12 months post-intervention), and long term follow-up (≥12 months post-intervention). Physiotherapy care was the reference comparison intervention. The design-by-treatment interaction model was used to assess global inconsistency and the Bucher method was used to assess local inconsistency.
RESULTS
97 randomised controlled trials involving 13 136 participants and 17 treatment nodes were included. Inconsistency was detected at short term and mid-term follow-up for physical function, and short term follow-up for pain intensity, and were resolved through sensitivity analyses. For physical function, cognitive behavioural therapy (standardised mean difference 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.44), and pain education (0.62, 0.08 to 1.17), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important improvements at post-intervention (moderate quality evidence). The most sustainable effects of treatment for improving physical function were reported with pain education delivered with physiotherapy care, at least until mid-term follow-up (0.63, 0.25 to 1.00; low quality evidence). No studies investigated the long term effectiveness of pain education delivered with physiotherapy care. For pain intensity, behavioural therapy (1.08, 0.22 to 1.94), cognitive behavioural therapy (0.92, 0.43 to 1.42), and pain education (0.91, 0.37 to 1.45), delivered with physiotherapy care, resulted in clinically important effects at post-intervention (low to moderate quality evidence). Only behavioural therapy delivered with physiotherapy care maintained clinically important effects on reducing pain intensity until mid-term follow-up (1.01, 0.41 to 1.60; high quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
For people with chronic, non-specific low back pain, psychological interventions are most effective when delivered in conjunction with physiotherapy care (mainly structured exercise). Pain education programmes (low to moderate quality evidence) and behavioural therapy (low to high quality evidence) result in the most sustainable effects of treatment; however, uncertainty remains as to their long term effectiveness. Although inconsistency was detected, potential sources were identified and resolved.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019138074.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychosocial Intervention; Research Design
PubMed: 35354560
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067718 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating SUDs, many individuals remain symptomatic despite treatment, and relapse is common.Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been examined for the treatment of SUDs, but available evidence is mixed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of MBIs for SUDs in terms of substance use outcomes, craving and adverse events compared to standard care, further psychotherapeutic, psychosocial or pharmacological interventions, or instructions, waiting list and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to April 2021: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We searched two trial registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs testing a MBI versus no treatment or another treatment in individuals with SUDs. SUDs included alcohol and/or drug use disorders but excluded tobacco use disorders. MBIs were defined as interventions including training in mindfulness meditation with repeated meditation practice. Studies in which SUDs were formally diagnosed as well as those merely demonstrating elevated SUD risk were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with 35 RCTs involving 2825 participants eligible for meta-analysis. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and most were at high risk of detection bias. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus no treatment Twenty-four RCTs included a comparison between MBI and no treatment. The evidence was uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to no treatment on all primary outcomes: continuous abstinence rate (post: risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.14, 1 RCT, 112 participants; follow-up: RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.01, 1 RCT, 112 participants); percentage of days with substance use (post-treatment: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47, 4 RCTs, 248 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.54, 3 RCTs, 167 participants); and consumed amount (post-treatment: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.52, 3 RCTs, 221 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.66, 2 RCTs, 142 participants). Evidence was uncertain for craving intensity and serious adverse events. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in study attrition relative to no treatment (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, 21 RCTs, 1087 participants). Certainty of evidence for all other outcomes was very low due to imprecision, risk of bias, and/or inconsistency. Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus other treatments (standard of care, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, support group, physical exercise, medication) Nineteen RCTs included a comparison between MBI and another treatment. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on continuous abstinence rate at post-treatment (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.44, 1 RCT, 286 participants) and follow-up (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.16, 1 RCT, 286 participants), and on consumed amount at post-treatment (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.39, 1 RCT, 25 participants) due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence suggests that MBIs reduce percentage of days with substance use slightly relative to other treatments at post-treatment (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.03, 5 RCTs, 523 participants) and follow-up (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.17, 3 RCTs, 409 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on craving intensity due to imprecision and inconsistency. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in attrition relative to other treatments (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26, 14 RCTs, 1531 participants). Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with no treatment, the evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs on SUD-related outcomes. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than no treatment. In comparison with other treatments, MBIs may slightly reduce days with substance use at post-treatment and follow-up (4 to 10 months). The evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs relative to other treatments on abstinence, consumed substance amount, or craving. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than other treatments. Few studies reported adverse events.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Craving; Humans; Mindfulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34668188
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011723.pub2 -
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry Apr 2023To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of family therapy compared to other active treatments for adolescents with depressive disorders or suicidal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of family therapy compared to other active treatments for adolescents with depressive disorders or suicidal ideation.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic search of The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL and Web of Science and performed two meta-analyses of outcomes for depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.
RESULTS
We screened 5,940 records and identified 10 randomized controlled studies of family therapy for depressive disorder or suicidal ideation in adolescents with an active treatment comparison group. Nine studies reported outcome measures of depressive symptoms and four reported outcome measures of suicidal ideation. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between family therapy and active comparison treatments for end-of-treatment levels of depression. For suicidal ideation our meta-analysis showed a significant effect in favour of family therapy over comparison treatments for suicidal ideation.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current body of research, we found that family therapy is not superior to other psychotherapies in the treatment of depressive disorder. However, family therapy leads to significantly improved outcomes for suicidal ideation, compared to other psychotherapies. The evidence for the treatment of depression is of low quality needs more research.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Suicidal Ideation; Family Therapy; Depression; Psychotherapy; Combined Modality Therapy
PubMed: 36053279
DOI: 10.1177/13591045221125005 -
Brain and Behavior Feb 2021To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide an estimate of the effect of interventions on comorbid depressive disorder (MDD) or subthreshold depression in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the outcome of depression treatments in diabetes and comorbid MDD or subthreshold symptoms published before August 2019 compared to care as usual (CAU), placebo, waiting list (WL), or active comparator treatment as in a comparative effectiveness trial (CET). Primary outcomes were depressive symptom severity and glycemic control. Cohen's d is reported.
RESULTS
Forty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and 32 RCTs comprising 3,543 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that, compared to CAU, placebo or WL, all interventions showed a significant effect on combined outcome 0,485 (95% CI 0.360; 0.609). All interventions showed a significant effect on depression. Pharmacological treatment, group therapy, psychotherapy, and collaborative care had a significant effect on glycemic control. High baseline depression score was associated with a greater reduction in HbA c and depressive outcome. High baseline HbA c was associated with a greater reduction in HbA c.
CONCLUSION
All treatments are effective for comorbid depression in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Over the last decade, new interventions with large effect sizes have been introduced, such as group-based therapy, online treatment, and exercise. Although all interventions were effective for depression, not all treatments were effective for glycemic control. Effective interventions in comorbid depressive disorder may not be as effective in comorbid subthreshold depression. Baseline depression and HbA c scores modify the treatment effect. Based on the findings, we provide guidance for treatment depending on patient profile and desired outcome, and discuss possible avenues for further research.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Humans; Psychotherapy; Psychotherapy, Group; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33274609
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1981 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.
Topics: Adult; Allied Health Personnel; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Female; Health Personnel; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mindfulness; Occupational Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resilience, Psychological; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 32627860
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012527.pub2 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2021This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the evidence on standardized acceptance-/mindfulness-based interventions in DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the evidence on standardized acceptance-/mindfulness-based interventions in DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Randomized controlled trials examining Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) were searched via PubMed, Central, PsycInfo, and Scopus until June 2021. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for primary outcomes (anxiety) and secondary ones (depression and quality of life). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. We found 23 studies, mostly of unclear risk of bias, including 1815 adults with different DSM-5 anxiety disorders. ACT, MBCT and MBSR led to short-term effects on clinician- and patient-rated anxiety in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone. In comparison to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), ACT and MBCT showed comparable effects on both anxiety outcomes, while MBSR showed significantly lower effects. Analyses up to 6 and 12 months did not reveal significant differences compared to TAU or CBT. Effects on depression and quality of life showed similar trends. Statistical heterogeneity was moderate to considerable. Adverse events were reported insufficiently. The evidence suggests short-term anxiolytic effects of acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions. Specific treatment effects exceeding those of placebo mechanisms remain unclear. Protocol registry: Registered at Prospero on November 3rd, 2017 (CRD42017076810).
Topics: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Anxiety Disorders; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Humans; Mindfulness; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34650179
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99882-w -
The Journal of Pediatrics Jan 2022To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonpharmacologic interventions for the treatment of childhood functional constipation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonpharmacologic interventions for the treatment of childhood functional constipation.
STUDY DESIGN
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating nonpharmacologic treatments in children with functional constipation which reported at least 1 outcome of the core outcome set for children with functional constipation.
RESULTS
We included 52 RCTs with 4668 children, aged between 2 weeks and 18 years, of whom 47% were females. Studied interventions included gut microbiome-directed interventions, other dietary interventions, oral supplements, pelvic floor-directed interventions, electrical stimulation, dry cupping, and massage therapy. An overall high risk of bias was found across the majority of studies. Meta-analyses for treatment success and/or defecation frequency, including 20 RCTs, showed abdominal electrical stimulation (n = 3), Cassia Fistula emulsion (n = 2), and a cow's milk exclusion diet (n = 2 in a subpopulation with constipation as a possible manifestation of cow's milk allergy) may be effective. Evidence from RCTs not included in the meta-analyses, indicated that some prebiotic and fiber mixtures, Chinese herbal medicine (Xiao'er Biantong granules), and abdominal massage are promising therapies. In contrast, studies showed no benefit for the use of probiotics, synbiotics, an increase in water intake, dry cupping, or additional biofeedback or behavioral therapy. We found no RCTs on physical movement or acupuncture.
CONCLUSIONS
More well-designed high quality RCTs concerning nonpharmacologic treatments for children with functional constipation are needed before changes in current guidelines are indicated.
Topics: Biofeedback, Psychology; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Constipation; Cryotherapy; Diet; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Laxatives; Massage; Phytotherapy; Prebiotics
PubMed: 34536492
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.09.010