-
JAMA Psychiatry Apr 2019Cannabis is the most commonly used drug of abuse by adolescents in the world. While the impact of adolescent cannabis use on the development of psychosis has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cannabis is the most commonly used drug of abuse by adolescents in the world. While the impact of adolescent cannabis use on the development of psychosis has been investigated in depth, little is known about the impact of cannabis use on mood and suicidality in young adulthood.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a summary estimate of the extent to which cannabis use during adolescence is associated with the risk of developing subsequent major depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Proquest Dissertations and Theses were searched from inception to January 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Longitudinal and prospective studies, assessing cannabis use in adolescents younger than 18 years (at least 1 assessment point) and then ascertaining development of depression in young adulthood (age 18 to 32 years) were selected, and odds ratios (OR) adjusted for the presence of baseline depression and/or anxiety and/or suicidality were extracted.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Study quality was assessed using the Research Triangle Institute item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies. Two reviewers conducted all review stages independently. Selected data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The studies assessing cannabis use and depression at different points from adolescence to young adulthood and reporting the corresponding OR were included. In the studies selected, depression was diagnosed according to the third or fourth editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or by using scales with predetermined cutoff points.
RESULTS
After screening 3142 articles, 269 articles were selected for full-text review, 35 were selected for further review, and 11 studies comprising 23 317 individuals were included in the quantitative analysis. The OR of developing depression for cannabis users in young adulthood compared with nonusers was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.16-1.62; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for anxiety was not statistically significant: 1.18 (95% CI, 0.84-1.67; I2 = 42%). The pooled OR for suicidal ideation was 1.50 (95% CI, 1.11-2.03; I2 = 0%), and for suicidal attempt was 3.46 (95% CI, 1.53-7.84, I2 = 61.3%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Although individual-level risk remains moderate to low and results from this study should be confirmed in future adequately powered prospective studies, the high prevalence of adolescents consuming cannabis generates a large number of young people who could develop depression and suicidality attributable to cannabis. This is an important public health problem and concern, which should be properly addressed by health care policy.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior; Age Factors; Anxiety; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Marijuana Use; Suicidal Ideation; Suicide, Attempted
PubMed: 30758486
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4500 -
JAMA Psychiatry Apr 2015Despite the potential importance of understanding excess mortality among people with mental disorders, no comprehensive meta-analyses have been conducted quantifying... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
Despite the potential importance of understanding excess mortality among people with mental disorders, no comprehensive meta-analyses have been conducted quantifying mortality across mental disorders.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality among people with mental disorders and examine differences in mortality risks by type of death, diagnosis, and study characteristics.
DATA SOURCES
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Web of Science from inception through May 7, 2014, including references of eligible articles. Our search strategy included terms for mental disorders (eg, mental disorders, serious mental illness, and severe mental illness), specific diagnoses (eg, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder), and mortality. We also used Google Scholar to identify articles that cited eligible articles.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language cohort studies that reported a mortality estimate of mental disorders compared with a general population or controls from the same study setting without mental illness were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and articles. Of 2481 studies identified, 203 articles met the eligibility criteria and represented 29 countries in 6 continents.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
One reviewer conducted a full abstraction of all data, and 2 reviewers verified accuracy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Mortality estimates (eg, standardized mortality ratios, relative risks, hazard ratios, odds ratios, and years of potential life lost) comparing people with mental disorders and the general population or people without mental disorders. We used random-effects meta-analysis models to pool mortality ratios for all, natural, and unnatural causes of death. We also examined years of potential life lost and estimated the population attributable risk of mortality due to mental disorders.
RESULTS
For all-cause mortality, the pooled relative risk of mortality among those with mental disorders (from 148 studies) was 2.22 (95% CI, 2.12-2.33). Of these, 135 studies revealed that mortality was significantly higher among people with mental disorders than among the comparison population. A total of 67.3% of deaths among people with mental disorders were due to natural causes, 17.5% to unnatural causes, and the remainder to other or unknown causes. The median years of potential life lost was 10 years (n = 24 studies). We estimate that 14.3% of deaths worldwide, or approximately 8 million deaths each year, are attributable to mental disorders.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These estimates suggest that mental disorders rank among the most substantial causes of death worldwide. Efforts to quantify and address the global burden of illness need to better consider the role of mental disorders in preventable mortality.
Topics: Cause of Death; Cohort Studies; Cost of Illness; Humans; Internationality; Life Expectancy; Mental Disorders; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25671328
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2502 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2022Almost 70% of patients with mental disorders report sleep difficulties and 30% fulfill the criteria for insomnia disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Almost 70% of patients with mental disorders report sleep difficulties and 30% fulfill the criteria for insomnia disorder. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line treatment for insomnia according to current treatment guidelines. Despite this circumstance, insomnia is frequently treated only pharmacologically especially in patients with mental disorders. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of CBT-I in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia on two outcome parameters: the severity of insomnia and mental health. The databases PubMed, CINHAL (Ebsco) und PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched for randomized controlled trials on adult patients with comorbid insomnia and any mental disorder comparing CBT-I to placebo, waitlist or treatment as usual using self-rating questionnaires as outcomes for either insomnia or mental health or both. The search resulted in 1994 records after duplicate removal of which 22 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for the meta-analysis. The comorbidities were depression (eight studies, 491 patients), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, four studies, 216 patients), alcohol dependency (three studies, 79 patients), bipolar disorder (one study, 58 patients), psychosis (one study, 50 patients) and mixed comorbidities within one study (five studies, 189 patients). The effect sizes for the reduction of insomnia severity post treatment were 0.5 (confidence interval, CI, 0.3-0.8) for patients with depression, 1.5 (CI 1.0-1.9) for patients with PTSD, 1.4 (CI 0.9-1.9) for patients with alcohol dependency, 1.2 (CI 0.8-1.7) for patients with psychosis/bipolar disorder, and 0.8 (CI 0.1-1.6) for patients with mixed comorbidities. Effect sizes for the reduction of insomnia severity were moderate to large at follow-up. Regarding the effects on comorbid symptom severity, effect sizes directly after treatment were 0.5 (CI 0.1-0.8) for depression, 1.3 (CI 0.6-1.9) for PTSD, 0.9 (CI 0.3-1.4) for alcohol dependency in only one study, 0.3 (CI -0.1 - 0.7, insignificant) for psychosis/bipolar, and 0.8 (CI 0.1-1.5) for mixed comorbidities. There were no significant effects on comorbid symptoms at follow-up. Together, these significant, stable medium to large effects indicate that CBT-I is an effective treatment for patients with insomnia and a comorbid mental disorder, especially depression, PTSD and alcohol dependency. CBT-I is also an effective add-on treatment with the aim of improving mental health in patients with depression, PTSD, and symptom severity in outpatients with mixed diagnoses. Thus, in patients with mental disorders and comorbid insomnia, given the many side effects of medication, CBT-I should be considered as a first-line treatment.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Comorbidity; Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35240417
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101597 -
Molecular Psychiatry Apr 2022The emerging understanding of gut microbiota as 'metabolic machinery' influencing many aspects of physiology has gained substantial attention in the field of psychiatry.... (Review)
Review
The emerging understanding of gut microbiota as 'metabolic machinery' influencing many aspects of physiology has gained substantial attention in the field of psychiatry. This is largely due to the many overlapping pathophysiological mechanisms associated with both the potential functionality of the gut microbiota and the biological mechanisms thought to be underpinning mental disorders. In this systematic review, we synthesised the current literature investigating differences in gut microbiota composition in people with the major psychiatric disorders, major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ), compared to 'healthy' controls. We also explored gut microbiota composition across disorders in an attempt to elucidate potential commonalities in the microbial signatures associated with these mental disorders. Following the PRISMA guidelines, databases were searched from inception through to December 2021. We identified 44 studies (including a total of 2510 psychiatric cases and 2407 controls) that met inclusion criteria, of which 24 investigated gut microbiota composition in MDD, seven investigated gut microbiota composition in BD, and 15 investigated gut microbiota composition in SZ. Our syntheses provide no strong evidence for a difference in the number or distribution (α-diversity) of bacteria in those with a mental disorder compared to controls. However, studies were relatively consistent in reporting differences in overall community composition (β-diversity) in people with and without mental disorders. Our syntheses also identified specific bacterial taxa commonly associated with mental disorders, including lower levels of bacterial genera that produce short-chain fatty acids (e.g. butyrate), higher levels of lactic acid-producing bacteria, and higher levels of bacteria associated with glutamate and GABA metabolism. We also observed substantial heterogeneity across studies with regards to methodologies and reporting. Further prospective and experimental research using new tools and robust guidelines hold promise for improving our understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in mental and brain health and the development of interventions based on modification of gut microbiota.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Brain; Depressive Disorder, Major; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35194166
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01456-3 -
Clinical Psychology Review Dec 2022Virtual reality (VR) technologies are playing an increasingly important role in the diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Virtual reality (VR) technologies are playing an increasingly important role in the diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the current evidence regarding the use of VR in the diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders.
DATA SOURCE
Systematic literature searches via PubMed (last literature update: 9 of May 2022) were conducted for the following areas of psychopathology: Specific phobias, panic disorder and agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, dementia disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and addiction disorders.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
To be eligible, studies had to be published in English, to be peer-reviewed, to report original research data, to be VR-related, and to deal with one of the above-mentioned areas of psychopathology.
STUDY EVALUATION
For each study included, various study characteristics (including interventions and conditions, comparators, major outcomes and study designs) were retrieved and a risk of bias score was calculated based on predefined study quality criteria.
RESULTS
Across all areas of psychopathology, k = 9315 studies were inspected, of which k = 721 studies met the eligibility criteria. From these studies, 43.97% were considered assessment-related, 55.48% therapy-related, and 0.55% were mixed. The highest research activity was found for VR exposure therapy in anxiety disorders, PTSD and addiction disorders, where the most convincing evidence was found, as well as for cognitive trainings in dementia and social skill trainings in autism spectrum disorder.
CONCLUSION
While VR exposure therapy will likely find its way successively into regular patient care, there are also many other promising approaches, but most are not yet mature enough for clinical application.
REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO register CRD42020188436.
FUNDING
The review was funded by budgets from the University of Bonn. No third party funding was involved.
Topics: Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Phobic Disorders; Anxiety Disorders; Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy; Virtual Reality; Dementia
PubMed: 36356351
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102213 -
PLoS Medicine Aug 2020Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Psychological and pharmacological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental health problems following complex traumatic events: Systematic review and component network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed to complex traumatic events are at risk of not only posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but also other mental health comorbidities. Whereas evidence-based psychological and pharmacological treatments are effective for single-event PTSD, it is not known if people who have experienced complex traumatic events can benefit and tolerate these commonly available treatments. Furthermore, it is not known which components of psychological interventions are most effective for managing PTSD in this population. We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for managing mental health problems in people exposed to complex traumatic events.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of psychological and pharmacological treatments for PTSD symptoms in people exposed to complex traumatic events, published up to 25 October 2019. We adopted a nondiagnostic approach and included studies of adults who have experienced complex trauma. Complex-trauma subgroups included veterans; childhood sexual abuse; war-affected; refugees; and domestic violence. The primary outcome was reduction in PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality, and positive and negative affect. We included 116 studies, of which 50 were conducted in hospital settings, 24 were delivered in community settings, seven were delivered in military clinics for veterans or active military personnel, five were conducted in refugee camps, four used remote delivery via web-based or telephone platforms, four were conducted in specialist trauma clinics, two were delivered in home settings, and two were delivered in primary care clinics; clinical setting was not reported in 17 studies. Ninety-four RCTs, for a total of 6,158 participants, were included in meta-analyses across the primary and secondary outcomes; 18 RCTs for a total of 933 participants were included in the component network meta-analysis. The mean age of participants in the included RCTs was 42.6 ± 9.3 years, and 42% were male. Nine non-RCTs were included. The mean age of participants in the non-RCTs was 40.6 ± 9.4 years, and 47% were male. The average length of follow-up across all included studies at posttreatment for the primary outcome was 11.5 weeks. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that psychological interventions reduce PTSD symptoms more than inactive control (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.63) and active control (k-9; n = 662; SMD = -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14) at posttreatment and also compared with inactive control at 6-month follow-up (k = 10; n = 738; SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.08). Psychological interventions reduced depressive symptoms (k = 31; n = 2,075; SMD = -0.87, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.63; I2 = 82.7%, p = 0.000) and anxiety (k = 15; n = 1,395; SMD = -1.03, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.61; p = 0.000) at posttreatment compared with inactive control. Sleep quality was significantly improved at posttreatment by psychological interventions compared with inactive control (k = 3; n = 111; SMD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.51; p = 0.245). There were no significant differences between psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k = 6; n = 401; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.021). Antipsychotic medicine (k = 5; n = 364; SMD = -0.45; -0.85 to -0.05; p = 0.085) and prazosin (k = 3; n = 110; SMD = -0.52; -1.03 to -0.02; p = 0.182) were effective in reducing PTSD symptoms. Phase-based psychological interventions that included skills-based strategies along with trauma-focused strategies were the most promising interventions for emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Compared with pharmacological interventions, we observed that psychological interventions were associated with greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms and improved sleep quality. Sensitivity analysis showed that psychological interventions were acceptable with lower dropout, even in studies rated at low risk of attrition bias. Trauma-focused psychological interventions were superior to non-trauma-focused interventions across trauma subgroups for PTSD symptoms, but effects among veterans and war-affected populations were significantly reduced. The network meta-analysis showed that multicomponent interventions that included cognitive restructuring and imaginal exposure were the most effective for reducing PTSD symptoms (k = 17; n = 1,077; mean difference = -37.95, 95% CI -60.84 to -15.16). Our use of a non-diagnostic inclusion strategy may have overlooked certain complex-trauma populations with severe and enduring mental health comorbidities. Additionally, the relative contribution of skills-based intervention components was not feasibly evaluated in the network meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that trauma-focused psychological interventions are effective for managing mental health problems and comorbidities in people exposed to complex trauma. Multicomponent interventions, which can include phase-based approaches, were the most effective treatment package for managing PTSD in complex trauma. Establishing optimal ways to deliver multicomponent psychological interventions for people exposed to complex traumatic events is a research and clinical priority.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Comorbidity; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Network Meta-Analysis; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 32813696
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003262 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Jan 2017Many studies report a positive association between smoking and mental illness. However, the literature remains mixed regarding the direction of this association. We... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies report a positive association between smoking and mental illness. However, the literature remains mixed regarding the direction of this association. We therefore conducted a systematic review evaluating the association of smoking and depression and/or anxiety in longitudinal studies.
METHODS
Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and were included if they: (1) used human participants, (2) were longitudinal, (3) reported primary data, (4) had smoking as an exposure and depression and/or anxiety as an outcome, or (5) had depression and/or anxiety as the exposure and smoking as an outcome.
RESULTS
Outcomes from 148 studies were categorized into: smoking onset, smoking status, smoking heaviness, tobacco dependence, and smoking trajectory. The results for each category varied substantially, with evidence for positive associations in both directions (smoking to later mental health and mental health to later smoking) as well as null findings. Overall, nearly half the studies reported that baseline depression/anxiety was associated with some type of later smoking behavior, while over a third found evidence that a smoking exposure was associated with later depression/anxiety. However, there were few studies directly supporting a bidirectional model of smoking and anxiety, and very few studies reporting null results.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature on the prospective association between smoking and depression and anxiety is inconsistent in terms of the direction of association most strongly supported. This suggests the need for future studies that employ different methodologies, such as Mendelian randomization (MR), which will allow us to draw stronger causal inferences.
IMPLICATIONS
We systematically reviewed longitudinal studies on the association of different aspects of smoking behavior with depression and anxiety. The results varied considerably, with evidence for smoking both associated with subsequent depression and anxiety, and vice versa. Few studies supported a bidirectional relationship, or reported null results, and no clear patterns by gender, ethnicity, clinical status, length to follow-up, or diagnostic test. Suggesting that despite advantages of longitudinal studies, they cannot alone provide strong evidence of causality. Therefore, future studies investigating this association should employ different methods allowing for stronger causal inferences to be made, such as MR.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Humans; Prospective Studies; Sex Characteristics; Smoking; Tobacco Use Disorder
PubMed: 27199385
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntw140 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2021Sleep disorders, especially insomnia, are very common in different kinds of cancers, but their prevalence and incidence are not well-known. Disturbed sleep in cancer is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Sleep disorders, especially insomnia, are very common in different kinds of cancers, but their prevalence and incidence are not well-known. Disturbed sleep in cancer is caused by different reasons and usually appears as a comorbid disorder to different somatic and psychiatric diagnoses, psychological disturbances and treatment methods. There can be many different predictors for sleep disturbances in these vulnerable groups, such as pre-existing sleep disorders, caused by the mental status in cancer or as side effect of the cancer treatment.
METHODS
A systematic literature review of 8073 studies was conducted on the topic of sleep and sleep disorders in cancer patients. The articles were identified though PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Knowledge, and a total number of 89 publications were qualified for analysis.
RESULTS
The identified eighty-nine studies were analyzed on the topic of sleep and sleep disorders in cancer, twenty-six studies on sleep and fatigue in cancer and sixty-one studies on the topic of sleep disorders in cancer. The prevalence of sleep disturbences and/or sleep disorders in cancer was up to 95%.
DISCUSSION
Sleep disturbances and sleep disorders (such as insomnia, OSAS, narcolepsy and RLS; REM-SBD) in cancer patients can be associated with different conditions. Side effects of cancer treatment and cancer-related psychological dysfunctions can be instigated by sleep disturbances and sleep disorders in these patients, especially insomnia and OSAS are common. An evidence-based treatment is necessary for concomitant mental and/or physical states.
Topics: Humans; Narcolepsy; Neoplasms; Restless Legs Syndrome; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 34770209
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111696 -
International Journal of Epidemiology Apr 2014Since the introduction of specified diagnostic criteria for mental disorders in the 1970s, there has been a rapid expansion in the number of large-scale mental health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the introduction of specified diagnostic criteria for mental disorders in the 1970s, there has been a rapid expansion in the number of large-scale mental health surveys providing population estimates of the combined prevalence of common mental disorders (most commonly involving mood, anxiety and substance use disorders). In this study we undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of this literature.
METHODS
We applied an optimized search strategy across the Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and PubMed databases, supplemented by hand searching to identify relevant surveys. We identified 174 surveys across 63 countries providing period prevalence estimates (155 surveys) and lifetime prevalence estimates (85 surveys). Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken on logit-transformed prevalence rates to calculate pooled prevalence estimates, stratified according to methodological and substantive groupings.
RESULTS
Pooling across all studies, approximately 1 in 5 respondents (17.6%, 95% confidence interval:16.3-18.9%) were identified as meeting criteria for a common mental disorder during the 12-months preceding assessment; 29.2% (25.9-32.6%) of respondents were identified as having experienced a common mental disorder at some time during their lifetimes. A consistent gender effect in the prevalence of common mental disorder was evident; women having higher rates of mood (7.3%:4.0%) and anxiety (8.7%:4.3%) disorders during the previous 12 months and men having higher rates of substance use disorders (2.0%:7.5%), with a similar pattern for lifetime prevalence. There was also evidence of consistent regional variation in the prevalence of common mental disorder. Countries within North and South East Asia in particular displayed consistently lower one-year and lifetime prevalence estimates than other regions. One-year prevalence rates were also low among Sub-Saharan-Africa, whereas English speaking counties returned the highest lifetime prevalence estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite a substantial degree of inter-survey heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, the findings confirm that common mental disorders are highly prevalent globally, affecting people across all regions of the world. This research provides an important resource for modelling population needs based on global regional estimates of mental disorder. The reasons for regional variation in mental disorder require further investigation.
Topics: Female; Global Health; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Prevalence; Sex Distribution; Time Factors
PubMed: 24648481
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyu038 -
Clinical Psychology Review Feb 2018Despite widespread scientific and popular interest in mindfulness-based interventions, questions regarding the empirical status of these treatments remain. We sought to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Despite widespread scientific and popular interest in mindfulness-based interventions, questions regarding the empirical status of these treatments remain. We sought to examine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for clinical populations on disorder-specific symptoms. To address the question of relative efficacy, we coded the strength of the comparison group into five categories: no treatment, minimal treatment, non-specific active control, specific active control, and evidence-based treatment. A total of 142 non-overlapping samples and 12,005 participants were included. At post-treatment, mindfulness-based interventions were superior to no treatment (d=0.55), minimal treatment (d=0.37), non-specific active controls (d=0.35), and specific active controls (d=0.23). Mindfulness conditions did not differ from evidence-based treatments (d=-0.004). At follow-up, mindfulness-based interventions were superior to no treatment conditions (d=0.50), non-specific active controls (d=0.52), and specific active controls (d=0.29). Mindfulness conditions did not differ from minimal treatment conditions (d=0.38) and evidence-based treatments (d=0.09). Effects on specific disorder subgroups showed the most consistent evidence in support of mindfulness for depression, pain conditions, smoking, and addictive disorders. Results support the notion that mindfulness-based interventions hold promise as evidence-based treatments.
Topics: Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Meditation; Mental Disorders; Mindfulness; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29126747
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.011