-
Psychoneuroendocrinology Aug 2024Allopregnanolone (ALLO) is a metabolite of progesterone and a neuroactive steroid hormone. As a positive allosteric modulator of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)...
BACKGROUND
Allopregnanolone (ALLO) is a metabolite of progesterone and a neuroactive steroid hormone. As a positive allosteric modulator of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, ALLO seems to have antidepressant and anxiolytic effects, and was therefore approved as a specific medication for the treatment of postpartum depression in 2019. Despite the growing number of publications investigating ALLO levels, results on the biological and psychological correlates in the peripartum period remain inconsistent, possibly due to methodological challenges regarding measurement. To date, however, there is no systematic review examining the correlates, concentrations, and challenges in measuring ALLO in peripartum women.
METHOD
A systematic literature search of PubMed and PsycINFO was conducted in August 2023. Original research articles that measured ALLO concentrations in peripartum women were included. Reports were excluded if they were not original research, included non-human subjects, did not include peripartum women, did not include ALLO measurement as an outcome, included (pharmacological) interventions, constituted method validations, or used the same cohort as another study.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 234 articles, and two articles were identified from other sources. After full-text screening, 19 articles (N = 1401) met the inclusion criteria, of which seven focused on biological correlates of ALLO and 12 on mood correlates. Of the latter, six found no association between ALLO and mood, four found a negative association, and two found a positive association. Overall, the results show an increase in ALLO levels during pregnancy and a decrease after birth, with levels then remaining low until six months postpartum. ALLO was most commonly measured in blood plasma and by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). A significant matrix effect was found for blood serum and a significant method effect for radioimmunoassays (RIAs). A significant effect of time of measurement was found.
CONCLUSION
ALLO measurement shows method and matrix effects. ALLO levels are higher when measured in serum compared to in plasma, and when measured using RIA compared to other methods. Time of measurement, study design, and standardization of measurement also influence the reliability of measurement and the interpretation of results.
Topics: Humans; Pregnanolone; Female; Peripartum Period; Pregnancy; Depression, Postpartum; Adult
PubMed: 38759520
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107081 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research May 2024Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) has gained attention as an enhanced form of traditional TMS, targeting broader and deeper regions of the brain. However, a... (Review)
Review
Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) has gained attention as an enhanced form of traditional TMS, targeting broader and deeper regions of the brain. However, a fulsome synthesis of dTMS efficacy across psychiatric and cognitive disorders using sham-controlled trials is lacking. We systematically reviewed 28 clinical trials comparing active dTMS to a sham/controlled condition to characterize dTMS efficacy across diverse psychiatric and cognitive disorders. A comprehensive search of APA PsycINFO, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed databases was conducted. Predominant evidence supports dTMS efficacy in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; n = 2), substance use disorders (SUDs; n = 8), and in those experiencing depressive episodes with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD; n = 6). However, the clinical efficacy of dTMS in psychiatric disorders characterized by hyperactivity or hyperarousal (i.e., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia) was heterogeneous. Common side effects included headaches and pain/discomfort, with rare but serious adverse events such as seizures and suicidal ideation/attempts. Risk of bias ratings indicated a collectively low risk according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations checklist (Meader et al., 2014). Literature suggests promise for dTMS as a beneficial alternative or add-on treatment for patients who do not respond well to traditional treatment, particularly for depressive episodes, OCD, and SUDs. Mixed evidence and limited clinical trials for other psychiatric and cognitive disorders suggest more extensive research is warranted. Future research should examine the durability of dTMS interventions and identify moderators of clinical efficacy.
PubMed: 38759496
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.05.011 -
World Psychiatry : Official Journal of... Jun 2024Psychotherapies are first-line treatments for most mental disorders, but their absolute outcomes (i.e., response and remission rates) are not well studied, despite the...
Psychotherapies are first-line treatments for most mental disorders, but their absolute outcomes (i.e., response and remission rates) are not well studied, despite the relevance of such information for health care users, providers and policy makers. We aimed to examine absolute and relative outcomes of psychotherapies across eight mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), specific phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). We used a series of living systematic reviews included in the Metapsy initiative (www.metapsy.org), with a common strategy for literature search, inclusion of studies and extraction of data, and a common format for the analyses. Literature search was conducted in major bibliographical databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up to January 1, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials comparing psychotherapies for any of the eight mental disorders, established by a diagnostic interview, with a control group (waitlist, care-as-usual, or pill placebo). We conducted random-effects model pairwise meta-analyses. The main outcome was the absolute rate of response (at least 50% symptom reduction between baseline and post-test) in the treatment and control conditions. Secondary outcomes included the relative risk (RR) of response, and the number needed to treat (NNT). Random-effects meta-analyses of the included 441 trials (33,881 patients) indicated modest response rates for psychotherapies: 0.42 (95% CI: 0.39-0.45) for MDD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33-0.43) for PTSD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.30-0.47) for OCD; 0.38 (95% CI: 0.33-0.43) for panic disorder; 0.36 (95% CI: 0.30-0.42) for GAD; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.29-0.37) for social anxiety disorder; 0.32 (95% CI: 0.23-0.42) for specific phobia; and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.15-0.36) for BPD. Most sensitivity analyses broadly supported these findings. The RRs were significant for all disorders, except BPD. Our conclusion is that most psychotherapies for the eight mental disorders are effective compared with control conditions, but absolute response rates are modest. More effective treatments and interventions for those not responding to a first-line treatment are needed.
PubMed: 38727072
DOI: 10.1002/wps.21203 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2024Current treatment modalities for Major Depressive Disorder have variable efficacies and a variety of side effects. To amend this, many trials for short term, well...
BACKGROUND
Current treatment modalities for Major Depressive Disorder have variable efficacies and a variety of side effects. To amend this, many trials for short term, well tolerated monotherapies are underway. One such option is Zuranolone (SAGE-217), which is a recent FDA approved antidepressant for depression (PPD) and is undergoing clinical trials for PPD, major depressive disorder (MDD) and essential tremors (ET).
OBJECTIVES
Pool currently available data that compare Zuranolone to Placebo for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and evaluate its efficacy and safety profile.
METHODS
We retrieved data from PUBMED and SCOPUS from inception to July 2023. We included articles comparing Zuranolone or SAGE 217 with placebo in patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder. Review Manager 5.4 was used to analyze the outcomes including changes in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores from baseline as well as any treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and severe adverse events.
RESULTS
Our review analyzed 4 trials and the data of 1,357 patients. Patients treated with Zuranolone indicated a statistically significant effect in the change from baseline in HAM-D score ( = 0.0009; MD [95% CI]: -2.03 [-3.23, -0.84]) as well as in MADRS score ( = 0.02; MD [95% CI]: -2.30[-4.31, -0.30]) and HAM-A score ( = 0.03; MD [95% CI]: -1.41[-2.70, -0.11]) on 15th day when compared to the Placebo group. Zuranolone was also significantly associated with a higher response rate ( = 0.0008; OR [95% CI]: 1.63[1.14, 2.35]) and higher remission rate ( = 0.03; OR [95% CI]: 1.65[1.05, 2.59]) when compared with the placebo. As for safety, Zuranolone was significantly associated with 1 or more TEAE ( = 0.006; RR [95% CI]: 1.14[1.04, 1.24]) but an insignificant association with side effects that lead to drug discontinuation ( = 0.70; RR [95% CI]: 1.18[0.51, 2.76]) and serious adverse events ( = 0.48; RR [95% CI]: 1.46 [0.52, 4.10]) when compared with placebo.
CONCLUSION
Zuranolone is an effective and safe drug for short course major depressive disorder monotherapy. It shows results in 14 days (compared to 2-4 weeks that SSRI's take) and has anti-anxiolytic effects as well. However, only 4 trials have been used for the analysis and the sample size was small. The trials reviewed also cannot determine the long-term effects of the drug. More trials are needed to determine long term effects.
PubMed: 38726035
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1361692 -
BJPsych Open May 2024Identification of the predominant polarity, i.e. hypomanic/manic (mPP) or depressive predominant polarity (dPP), might help clinicians to improve personalised management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Identification of the predominant polarity, i.e. hypomanic/manic (mPP) or depressive predominant polarity (dPP), might help clinicians to improve personalised management of bipolar disorder.
AIMS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence and correlates of mPP and dPP in bipolar disorder.
METHOD
The protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8S2HU). We searched main electronic databases up to December 2023 and performed random-effects meta-analyses of weighted prevalence of mPP and dPP. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for relevant correlates.
RESULTS
We included 28 studies, providing information on rates and/or correlates of mPP and dPP. We estimated similar rates of mPP (weighted prevalence = 30.0%, 95% CI: 23.1 to 37.4%) and dPP (weighted prevalence = 28.5%, 95% CI: 23.7 to 33.7%) in bipolar disorder. Younger age (WMD = -3.19, 95% CI: -5.30 to -1.08 years), male gender (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.76), bipolar-I disorder (odds ratio = 4.82, 95% CI: 2.27 to 10.24), psychotic features (odds ratio = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.41), earlier onset (WMD = -1.57, 95% CI: -2.88 to -0.26 years) and manic onset (odds ratio = 13.54, 95% CI: 5.83 to 31.46) were associated with mPP ( < 0.05). Depressive onset (odds ratio = 12.09, 95% CI: 6.38 to 22.90), number of mood episodes (WMD = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.70 episodes), history of suicide attempts (odds ratio = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.49 to 2.93) and being in a relationship (odds ratio = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.22) were associated with dPP ( < 0.05). No differences were estimated for other variables.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite some limitations, our findings support the hypothesis that predominant polarity might be a useful specifier of bipolar disorder. Evidence quality was mixed, considering effects magnitude, consistency, precision and publication bias. Different predominant polarities may identify subgroups of patients with specific clinical characteristics.
PubMed: 38708573
DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2024.51 -
Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Apr 2024Recent guidelines on depressive disorders suggest a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy in case of moderate to severe symptomatology. While cognitive...
INTRODUCTION
Recent guidelines on depressive disorders suggest a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy in case of moderate to severe symptomatology. While cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy are the most investigated interventions, psychodynamic psychotherapies have been less explored.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this paper is to systematically review literature data on the efficacy of shortterm psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) in combination with antidepressants in the treatment of depressive disorders, focusing both on short and on long-term results and on potential moderators that could influence its effectiveness.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched were PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, from inception to August 2023.
RESULTS
Adding STPP to medications in the first six months of treatment didn't influence remission rates, but improved acceptability, work adjustment, interpersonal relationships, social role functioning, hospitalization rates and cost-effectiveness. After 12 months, a significant difference in remission rates arised, favouring combined therapy. In a long-term perspective, adding STPP to pharmacotherapy reduced the recurrence rate by almost 50%. STPP has proven to be more effective in longer depressive episodes, in more severe depressions and in patients with a childhood abuse history. Instead, STPP had no impact on major depressive disorder with comorbid Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
CONCLUSIONS
Combining STPP with antidepressants appeared to be helpful both in a short-term and in a long-term perspective. Still, there are few rigorous studies with large samples and further research is needed to identify which subgroups of patients may benefit more from STPP.
PubMed: 38687843
DOI: 10.47626/2237-6089-2023-0764 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Among youth, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and alcohol use are associated with considerable illness and disability. Youth face many personal and health system... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among youth, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and alcohol use are associated with considerable illness and disability. Youth face many personal and health system barriers in accessing mental health care. Mobile applications (apps) offer youth potentially accessible, scalable, and anonymous therapy and other support. Recent systematic reviews on apps to reduce mental health symptoms among youth have reported uncertain effectiveness, but analyses based on the type of app-delivered therapy are limited.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted this systematic review with youth co-researchers to ensure that this review addressed the questions that were most important to them. The objective of this review is to synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of mobile apps for the reduction of depressive symptoms (depression, generalized anxiety, psychological distress) and alcohol use among youth.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted electronic searches of the following bibliographic databases for studies published between January 1, 2008, and July 1, 2022: MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), and CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library). The search used a combination of indexed terms, free text words, and MeSH headings. We manually screened the references of relevant systematic reviews and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for additional eligible studies, and contacted authors for full reports of identified trial registries or protocols.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs conducted among youth aged 15-24 years from any setting. We did not exclude populations on the basis of gender, socioeconomic status, geographic location or other personal characteristics. We included studies which assessed the effectiveness of app-delivered mental health support or therapy interventions that targeted the management of depressive disorders and/or alcohol use disorders. We excluded apps that targeted general wellness, apps which focused on prevention of psychological disorders and apps that targeted bipolar disorder, psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, substance use disorders (aside from alcohol), and sleep disorders. Eligible comparisons included usual care, no intervention, wait-list control, alternative or controlled mobile applications. We included studies which reported outcomes on depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, alcohol use and psychological distress over any follow-up period.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We standardized the PICO definitions (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) of each included study and grouped studies by the type of therapy or support offered by the app. Whenever app design and clinical homogeneity allowed, we meta-analyzed outcomes using a random-effects model. Outcome data measured using categorical scales were synthesized using odds ratios. Outcome data measured using continuous scales were synthesized as the standardized mean difference. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and we assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
From 5280 unique citations, we included 36 RCTs published in 37 reports and conducted in 15 different countries (7984 participants). Among the 36 included trials, we assessed two with an overall low risk of bias, 8 trials with some concern regarding risk of bias, and 26 trials with a high risk of bias. Interventions varied in the type of therapy or supports offered. The most common intervention designs employed mindfulness training, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), or a combination of the two (mindfulness + CBT). However, other interventions also included self-monitoring, medication reminders, cognitive bias modification or positive stimulation, dialectical behavioral therapy, gamified health promotion, or social skill building. Mindfulness apps led to short term improvements in depressive symptoms when compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI [-0.63, -0.10]; = 0.007, = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low certainty) and when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI [-0.53, -0.01]; = 0.04, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). Apps delivering this type of support also significantly improved symptoms of anxiety when compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI [-0.60, -0.09]; = 0.008, = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low) but not when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.24; 95% CI [-0.50, 0.02]; = 0.07, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). Mindfulness apps showed improvements in psychological stress that approached statistical significance among participants receiving the mindfulness mobile apps compared to those in the withheld control (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI [-0.56, 0.03]; = .07, = 4 RCTs, GRADE: very low). CBT apps also led to short-term improvements in depressive symptoms when compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI [-0.80, 0.01]; = 0.05, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low) and when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.59; 95% CI [-0.98, -0.19]; = 0.003, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). CBT-based apps also improved symptoms of anxiety compared to a withheld control (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI [-0.94, -0.09]; = 0.02, = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low) but not when compared to an active control (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI [-1.11, 0.59]; = 0.55, = 3 RCTs, GRADE: very low). Apps which combined mindfulness and CBT did not significantly improve symptoms of depression (SMD = -0.20; 95% CI [-0.42, 0.02]; = 0.07, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low) or anxiety (SMD = -0.21; 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07]; = 0.14, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). However, these apps did improve psychological distress (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI [-0.74, -0.12]; = 0.006, = 2 RCTs, GRADE: very low). The results of trials on apps to reduce alcohol use were inconsistent. We did not identify any harms associated with the use of apps to manage mental health concerns. All effectiveness results had a very low certainty of evidence rating using the GRADE approach, meaning that apps which deliver therapy or other mental health support may reduce symptoms of depression, anxiety and psychological distress but the evidence is very uncertain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We reviewed evidence from 36 trials conducted among youth. According to our meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of apps on depression, anxiety, psychological distress, and alcohol use. Very few effects were interpreted to be of clinical importance. Most of the RCTs were small studies focusing on efficacy for youth at risk for depressive symptoms. Larger trials are needed to evaluate effectiveness and allow for further analysis of subgroup differences. Longer trials are also needed to better estimate the clinical importance of these apps over the long term.
PubMed: 38680950
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1398 -
BMC Psychology Apr 2024Covid-19 has disrupted the lives of many and resulted in high prevalence rates of mental disorders. Despite a vast amount of research into the social determinants of...
A systematic review on the relationship between socioeconomic conditions and emotional disorder symptoms during Covid-19: unearthing the potential role of economic concerns and financial strain.
BACKGROUND
Covid-19 has disrupted the lives of many and resulted in high prevalence rates of mental disorders. Despite a vast amount of research into the social determinants of mental health during Covid-19, little is known about whether the results are consistent with the social gradient in mental health. Here we report a systematic review of studies that investigated how socioeconomic condition (SEC)-a multifaceted construct that measures a person's socioeconomic standing in society, using indicators such as education and income, predicts emotional health (depression and anxiety) risk during the pandemic. Furthermore, we examined which classes of SEC indicators would best predict symptoms of emotional disorders.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted search over six databases, including Scopus, PubMed, etc., between November 4, 2021 and November 11, 2021 for studies that investigated how SEC indicators predict emotional health risks during Covid-19, after obtaining approval from PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021288508). Using Covidence as the platform, 362 articles (324 cross-sectional/repeated cross-sectional and 38 longitudinal) were included in this review according to the eligibility criteria. We categorized SEC indicators into 'actual versus perceived' and 'static versus fluid' classes to explore their differential effects on emotional health.
RESULTS
Out of the 1479 SEC indicators used in these 362 studies, our results showed that 43.68% of the SEC indicators showed 'expected' results (i.e., higher SEC predicting better emotional health outcomes); 51.86% reported non-significant results and 4.46% reported the reverse. Economic concerns (67.16% expected results) and financial strains (64.16%) emerged as the best predictors while education (26.85%) and living conditions (30.14%) were the worst.
CONCLUSIONS
This review summarizes how different SEC indicators influenced emotional health risks across 98 countries, with a total of 5,677,007 participants, ranging from high to low-income countries. Our findings showed that not all SEC indicators were strongly predictive of emotional health risks. In fact, over half of the SEC indicators studied showed a null effect. We found that perceived and fluid SEC indicators, particularly economic concerns and financial strain could best predict depressive and anxiety symptoms. These findings have implications for policymakers to further understand how different SEC classes affect mental health during a pandemic in order to tackle associated social issues effectively.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Financial Stress; Socioeconomic Factors; Depression; Anxiety; Mental Health; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38671542
DOI: 10.1186/s40359-024-01715-8 -
PloS One 2024To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression or major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or major depressive disorder(MDD).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until April 2023 for RCT, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching for patients with TRD or MDD. Outcomes measured were changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), response and remission rate, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
Five RCTs, including 4480 patients, were included for meta-analysis. Among them, two RCTs were rated as "high risk" in three aspects (allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment) because of the non-blind method, and the quality evaluation of the remaining works of literature was "low risk". Augmentation treatment with Aripiprazole (A-ARI) was associated with a significant higher response rate compared with augmentation treatment with bupropion (A-BUP) (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.25; P = 0.0007; I2 = 23%). Besides, A-ARI had a significant higher remission rate compared with switching to bupropion (S-BUP) (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.49; P = 0.05; I2 = 59%) and A-BUP had a significant higher remission rate compared with S-BUP (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.36; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no significant difference in remission rate(RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.17; P = 0.42; I2 = 33%), improvement of MADRS(WMD: -2.07; 95% CI: -5.84, 1.70; P = 0.28; I2 = 70%) between A-ARI and A-BUP. No significant difference was observed in adverse events and serious adverse events among the three treatment strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
A-ARI may be a better comprehensive antidepressant treatment strategy than A-BUP or S-BUP for patients with TRD or MDD. More large-scale, multi-center, double-blind RCTs are needed to further evaluated the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation and switching treatment strategies.
Topics: Aripiprazole; Bupropion; Humans; Depressive Disorder, Major; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Depressive Disorder, Treatment-Resistant; Treatment Outcome; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38669232
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299020 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... Apr 2024Depression is a significant global disability, and early adverse experiences (EAE) represent consistent risk factors in children. However, protective factors play a...
BACKGROUND
Depression is a significant global disability, and early adverse experiences (EAE) represent consistent risk factors in children. However, protective factors play a vital role in promoting healthy development and mitigating these risks.
METHODS
We conducted a thorough literature search on Pubmed, APA, Emcare, and EMBASE from 1946 to August 25, 2023. We included longitudinal studies analyzing protective factors for depressive symptoms in high-risk children or adolescents, excluding cross-sectional studies, reviews, and pre-clinical studies.
OUTCOMES
Our analysis comprised 29 studies with 62,405 participants, identifying 38 protective factors. Positive individual characteristics, family factors, peer relationships, school-related aspects, neighborhood characteristics and intrinsic religiosity were associated with reduced depressive outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
These findings have important implications for developing preventive strategies in this population. Addressing protective factors can contribute to preventing depression and enhancing mental well-being across the lifespan.
PubMed: 38669083
DOI: 10.47626/1516-4446-2023-3363