Care-as-usual control groups across different settings in randomized trials on psychotherapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis

The effectiveness of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published over last 30 years

BACKGROUND

Although numerous studies have examined the effects of psychological treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), their overall effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to estimate their overall effect by combining all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological treatments to control groups for OCD.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 48 RCTs with 55 comparisons published between 1992 and 1 January 2023. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated at post-treatment and follow-up. Random-effects models were employed for all analyses, and the risk of bias was assessed.

RESULTS

In general, psychological treatments demonstrated a significantly large effect (g = -1.14; 95% CI [-1.31 to -0.97]; I2 = 72.23%) on reducing OCD symptom severity post-treatment, this finding remained consistent across measures and after excluding outliers, but lost significance in the sensitivity analysis for only studies with low risk of bias. Type of treatment, control group and treatment format were associated with treatment effects. Moreover, more severe baseline OCD symptom severity predicted higher degree of treatment efficacy. No significant differences were observed in dropout rates between the treatment and control groups. Treatment effects lost significance at 3-6 and 6-12 month follow-ups. 87% of RCTs were rated at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological treatments are effective in reducing OCD symptom severity. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the high heterogeneity and risk of bias across RCTs. Future studies with more rigorous methodology are required, as well as studies examining their long-term effectiveness.

The role of control groups in non-pharmacological randomised controlled trials of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Control groups used in randomised controlled trials investigating psychological interventions for depression and anxiety disorders have effects of their own. This has never been investigated for schizophrenia, in particular treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine how control groups in randomised controlled trials on psychological interventions for treatment-resistant schizophrenia behave in their effects on general symptomatology. In a search of various databases until July 2023, 31 eligible studies with 3125 participants were found whose control groups were assigned to four categories: active, inactive, treatment as usual and waitlist. The analyses showed that psychological interventions had a greater effect on symptom reduction to all control groups combined. When separating the control groups, only compared to TAU and waitlist controls the psychological interventions were superior. The difference was larger when less active control groups (e.g. waitlist - or treatment as usual control groups) were used. All control groups were associated with an improvement in symptoms from pre- to post-measurement point, with the greatest improvement observed in the inactive control group. The results are preliminary, but they suggest that the choice of the control group has a considerable impact on study effects as it has been shown in other psychiatric diagnoses.

Effects of a self-guided digital mental health self-help intervention for Syrian refugees in Egypt: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Digital mental health interventions for smartphones, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) Step-by-Step (SbS) program, are potentially scalable solutions to improve access to mental health and psychosocial support in refugee populations. Our study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of SbS as self-guided intervention with optional message-based contact-on-demand (COD) support on reducing psychological distress, functional impairment, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and self-identified problems in a sample of Syrian refugees residing in Egypt.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a 2-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial. A total of 538 Syrians residing in Egypt with elevated levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; K10 > 15) and reduced psychosocial functioning (WHODAS 2.0 > 16) were randomized into SbS + CAU (N = 266) or CAU only (N = 272). Primary outcomes were psychological distress (Hopkins Symptom Checklist 25) and impaired functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were symptoms of PTSD (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 short form, PCL-5 short) and self-identified problems (Psychological Outcomes Profiles Scale, PSYCHLOPS). Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses showed significant but small effects of condition on psychological distress (mean difference: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.02; p = .02) and functioning (mean difference: -2.04; 95% CI: -3.87, -0.22; p = .02) at 3-month follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups on symptoms of PTSD and self-identified problems. Remission rates did not differ between conditions on any of the outcomes. COD was used by 9.4% of participants for a median of 1 contact per person. The main limitations are high intervention dropout and low utilization of COD support.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial provides a real-world implementation case, showing small positive effects of a digital, potentially scalable and self-guided mental health intervention for Syrian refugees in Egypt in reducing psychological distress and improving overall functioning. Further user-centered adaptations are required to improve adherence and effectiveness while maintaining scalability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Register for Clinical Studies DRKS00023505.

Reducing Distress from Auditory Verbal Hallucinations: A Multicenter, Parallel, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of Relating Therapy

INTRODUCTION

There is a significant demand for interventions that reduce distress related to auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs). AVH distress is associated with the way voice hearers relate with AVHs. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that adding "Relating Therapy" (RT) to treatment as usual (TAU) is superior to TAU in reducing AVH distress.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, parallel, single-blind, randomized controlled feasibility trial in five mental health centers in Germany. Participants were ≥19 years of age, had persistent and distressing AVHs, and had a diagnosis of a schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. RT was delivered over a maximum of 16 sessions within 5 months. Blind assessments were conducted at baseline and at 5 and 9 months. Feasibility outcomes were the number of patients recruited and retained, and safety and therapist adherence. The primary endpoint was the distress factor score of the AVH subscale of the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scales at 9 months.

RESULTS

Eighty-five of 177 enrolled participants were randomized into RT + TAU (n = 43) or TAU (n = 42). Feasibility was excellent with 87% retention at 9 months, 86% reaching treatment uptake criteria, 98% therapist adherence, and no unexpected serious adverse reactions. Compared to TAU, RT + TAU showed nonsignificant trends toward less AVH distress (b = -2.40, SE = 1.52, p = 0.121, 90% CI (-4.94 to 0.15) and stronger improvement on all but one of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A randomized controlled trial of RT is feasible, safe, and well accepted. Our results provide an encouraging basis to further test the efficacy of RT in a definitive multicenter trial.

Scorn Not Its Simplicity: Examining the Effectiveness of Simple Generalist Treatment for Personality Disorders

Treatment guidelines for personality disorders have typically recommended specialized psychotherapeutic interventions. In this review, the author suggests that an intervention's effectiveness may be determined less by the specific method than by therapist competence, team culture, clinical process structure, and institutional context. The author argues that these elements determine variance in effectiveness between and within methods. Whereas initial studies of a specialized treatment may reflect the exceptional competencies of the treatment's developers and early adopters, in daily clinical practice, therapists with an average level of skill may struggle with the theoretical and methodological complexities of these treatments, which can hinder genuine connection with patients. This interference may particularly affect treatment outcomes when therapists encounter the intense emotions and interpersonal hypersensitivity experienced by patients with personality disorders. Most therapists would benefit from a set of simple generalist principles that determine the context for their work and offer a framework for dealing with clinical challenges while enabling them to be true to themselves and use their previously learned competencies. The Guideline-Informed Treatment for Personality Disorders is an enhanced common-factors approach that summarizes the core principles of effective treatment and can be feasibly implemented by most therapists.

Clinically representative therapy for Nordic adult outpatients with common mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

There is a knowledge gap regarding clinically representative therapy given in routine settings, that is treatment as usual (TAU), for patients with common mental health problems (CMHP). This review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate what characterizes clinically representative therapy in Nordic routine clinics and meta-analyze the outcome of such treatment. Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and SveMed+) were searched for TAU, CMHP, and Nordic countries, together with backward and forward search in Scopus (7 November 2022). Studies were either randomized controlled trials (RCT) or open trials, using prospective study designs, examining heterogeneous outpatient groups in routine treatment. Within- and between-group effect sizes (ES), using random effects model, and moderator analyses were calculated. Eleven studies (n = 1,413), demonstrated a small to moderate within-group ES with high heterogeneity (g = 0.49, I2  = 90%). ESs in RCTs were significantly smaller than in open trials. TAU had a marginally smaller ES (g = -0.21; adjusted for publication bias g = -0.06) compared to a broad set of clinical interventions. Clinically representative therapy in the Nordic countries demonstrated a wide variety of characteristics and also a marginally lower ES compared to other interventions. The ESs were smaller than other meta-analyses examining evidence-based treatments in routine treatment.

Looking back on life: An updated meta-analysis of the effect of life review therapy and reminiscence on late-life depression

BACKGROUND

Twenty years ago, we confirmed the effectiveness of life review therapy and reminiscence (LRT-REM) to treat late-life depression in a meta-analysis. In the current study, we aimed to examine the most updated evidence on the effects of LRT-REM in older adults with depression.

METHODS

We systematically searched records in English and Chinese databases up to December 2022 and included randomized controlled studies comparing LRT-REM with control conditions in older adults with depression. Outcomes included depression, anxiety, quality of life, and life satisfaction. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) at post-treatment were pooled with random effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

42 studies with 3361 depressed older adults (≥60 years) met the selection criteria. We found a significant and large effect of LRT-REM (g = 1.41, p < 0.001) on late-life depression, corresponding to a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 1.98. Heterogeneity shrunk from high (I2 = 86.78) to moderate (I2 = 46.87) after excluding eight detected outliers. There were no significant differences between the examined subgroups except for the type of control condition. The effects of LRT-REM were not statistically significant at follow-up when corrected for publication bias. The quality of many included studies was not optimal.

LIMITATIONS

The quality of many included studies was not optimal, with a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

LRT-REM may be effective for treating late-life depression, but long-term effects are unclear. More research is needed on the effects of LRT-REM, especially when guided by (para)professional or lay therapists in low- and middle-income countries.

How qualitative methods advance the study of causation in psychotherapy research

Objective: The use of qualitative methods for investigating causation has been controversial ever since the "paradigm wars" of the 1980s. Quantitative and experimental researchers have largely dismissed the relevance of qualitative research for causal investigations, while many qualitative researchers have rejected the concept of causation entirely. However, a growing number of scholars, in both research methods and philosophy, have proposed an alternative perspective, one that sees quantitative and qualitative approaches as having complementary strengths and limitations in understanding causation. In this article, we consider this perspective in relation to the study of causality in psychotherapy research. Method: This paper reviews and integrates key descriptions of the mechanisms for identifying causal processes using qualitative research. Results: An overview of how qualitative methods study causation is presented, considering its implications for both identifying causality and for generalizing causal conclusions. Conclusion: The paper holds relevance for establishing outcomes caused by psychotherapy treatments and for developing clinical practice guidance for the field.

What if we wait? Using synthetic waiting lists to estimate treatment effects in routine outcome data

Objective: Due to the lack of randomization, pre-post routine outcome data precludes causal conclusions. We propose the "synthetic waiting list" (SWL) control group to overcome this limitation.

Method: First, a step-by-step introduction illustrates this novel approach. Then, this approach is demonstrated using an empirical example with data from an outpatient cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) clinic (N = 139). We trained an ensemble machine learning model ("Super Learner") on a data set of patients waiting for treatment (N = 311) to make counterfactual predictions of symptom change during this hypothetical period.

Results: The between-group treatment effect was estimated to be d = 0.42. Of the patients who received CBT, 43.88% achieved reliable and clinically significant change, while this probability was estimated to be 14.54% in the SWL group. Counterfactual estimates suggest a clear net benefit of psychotherapy for 41% of patients. In 32%, the benefit was unclear, and 27% would have improved similarly without receiving CBT.

Conclusions: The SWL is a viable new approach that provides between-group outcome estimates similar to those reported in the literature comparing psychotherapy with high-intensity control interventions. It holds the potential to mitigate common limitations of routine outcome data analysis.

The roles of expectation, comparator, administration route, and population in open-label placebo effects: a network meta-analysis

Three meta-analyses have demonstrated the clinical potential of open-label placebos (OLPs). However, there is a need to synthesize the existing evidence through more complex analyses that would make it possible to answer questions beyond mere efficacy. Such analyses would serve to improve the understanding of why and under what circumstances OLPs work (e.g., depending on induced expectations or across different control groups). To answer these questions, we conducted the first network meta-analyses in the field of OLPs. Our analyses revealed that OLPs could be beneficial in comparison to no treatment in nonclinical (12 trials; 1015 participants) and clinical populations (25 trials; 2006 participants). Positive treatment expectations were found to be important for OLPs to work. Also, OLP effects can vary depending on the comparator used. While the kind of administration route had no substantial impact on the OLP effects, effects were found to be larger in clinical populations than in nonclinical populations. These results suggest that the expectation, comparator, administration route, and population should be considered when designing and interpreting OLP studies.

Depression and Suicide Risk Screening: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Depression is common and associated with substantial burden. Suicide rates have increased over the past decade, and both suicide attempts and deaths have devastating effects on individuals and families.

Objective

To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for depression and suicide risk and the accuracy of instruments to detect these conditions among primary care patients.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language studies of screening or treatment compared with control conditions, or test accuracy of screening instruments (for depression, instruments were selected a priori; for suicide risk, all were included). Existing systematic reviews were used for treatment and test accuracy for depression.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Findings were synthesized qualitatively, including reporting of meta-analysis results from existing systematic reviews; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Depression outcomes; suicidal ideation, attempts, and deaths; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools.

Results

For depression, 105 studies were included: 32 original studies (N=385 607) and 73 systematic reviews (including ≈2138 studies [N ≈ 9.8 million]). Depression screening interventions, many of which included additional components beyond screening, were associated with a lower prevalence of depression or clinically important depressive symptomatology after 6 to 12 months (pooled odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.50-0.73]; reported in 8 randomized clinical trials [n=10 244]; I2 = 0%). Several instruments demonstrated adequate test accuracy (eg, for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at a cutoff of 10 or greater, the pooled sensitivity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89] and specificity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.88]; reported in 47 studies [n = 11 234]). A large body of evidence supported benefits of psychological and pharmacologic treatment of depression. A pooled estimate from trials used for US Food and Drug Administration approval suggested a very small increase in the absolute risk of a suicide attempt with second-generation antidepressants (odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.15]; n = 40 857; 0.7% of antidepressant users had a suicide attempt vs 0.3% of placebo users; median follow-up, 8 weeks). Twenty-seven studies (n = 24 826) addressed suicide risk. One randomized clinical trial (n=443) of a suicide risk screening intervention found no difference in suicidal ideation after 2 weeks between primary care patients who were and were not screened for suicide risk. Three studies of suicide risk test accuracy were included; none included replication of any instrument. The included suicide prevention studies generally did not demonstrate an improvement over usual care, which typically included specialty mental health treatment.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evidence supported depression screening in primary care settings, including during pregnancy and postpartum. There are numerous important gaps in the evidence for suicide risk screening in primary care settings.

One-year follow-up of the effectiveness of a lifestyle modification programme as an adjuvant treatment of depression in primary care: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

An estimated 280 million individuals suffer from depression. Brief group interventions in Primary Healthcare Centres (PHCs) are recommended. One goal of these interventions is to educate people about healthy lifestyle habits, as they prevent the development of depression. This study aims to analyse the one-year follow-up results about the effectiveness of a Lifestyle Modification Programme (LMP) and an LMP plus Information and Communication Technologies (LMP + ICTs) when compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU).

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial. A total of 188 individuals that visited a general practitioner and met the inclusion criteria were randomised. LMP consisted of six weekly 90-minute group sessions focusing on lifestyle improvement. LMP + ICTs was a hybrid of the LMP format with the inclusion of a wearable smartwatch. We used linear mixed models (with a random intercept and an unstructured covariance) to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, and an intention-to-treat analysis and Multiple Imputation technique for handling missing data.

RESULTS

LMP + ICTs showed a statistically significant reduction on depressive symptoms (b = -2.68, 95 % CI = [-4.239, -1.133] p = .001) and sedentarism (b = -37.38, 95 % CI [-62.930, -11.833], p = .004) compared to TAU.

LIMITATIONS

Most of the dropouts were due to time restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

In long-term, LMPs plus ICTs administered in PHCs to people suffering from depression were effective in reducing depressive symptomatology and sedentarism comparing to TAU. More research is needed to enhance adherence to lifestyle recommendations. These promising programmes could be easily implemented in PHCs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03951350).

Psychotherapy for comorbid depression and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of depression in patients with somatic disorders is crucial, given its negative impact on quality of life (QoL), functioning, and even on the somatic disease prognosis. We aimed to examine the most updated evidence on the effects of psychotherapy in patients with depression and somatic disorders, including HIV, oncological, cardiometabolic, and neurological disorders.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of 75 randomized trials (8209 participants) of psychotherapy for adults with somatic disorders and a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression. Outcomes included depression, QoL, somatic health-related outcomes, and mortality.

RESULTS

Psychotherapy significantly reduced the severity of depression at post-treatment across all categories of somatic disorders (Hedges'g = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.79), with sustained effects at 6-11 months (g = 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.53) and at 12 months follow-up or longer (g = 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.21). Psychotherapy also showed significant effects on QoL (g = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.35), maintained up to 11 months follow-up (g = 0.25; 95% CI 0.16-0.34). No significant effects were observed on the most frequently reported somatic health-related outcomes (glycemic control, pain), and neither on mortality. Heterogeneity in most analyses was very high, and only 29 (38%) trials were rated at low risk of bias (RoB).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychotherapy may be an effective treatment option for patients with depression and somatic disorders, with long-term effects on depression severity and QoL. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity and RoB.

Psychological treatment of perinatal depression: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression during pregnancy and after the birth of a child is highly prevalent and an important public health problem. Psychological interventions are the first-line treatment and, although a considerable number of randomized trials have been conducted, no recent comprehensive meta-analysis has evaluated treatment effects.

METHODS

We used an existing database of randomized controlled trials of psychotherapies for adult depression and included studies aimed at perinatal depression. Random effects models were used in all analyses. We examined the effects of the interventions in the short and long term, and also examined secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies with 49 comparisons and 6270 participants between an intervention and control group were included. The overall effect size was g = 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45~0.89; numbers needed-to-be-treated = 4.39] with high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI 75~85). This effect size remained largely unchanged and significant in a series of sensitivity analyses, although some publication bias was found. The effects remained significant at 6-12 months follow-up. Significant effects were also found for social support, anxiety, functional limitations, parental stress and marital stress, although the number of studies for each outcome was low. All results should be considered with caution because of the high levels of heterogeneity in most analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological interventions are probably effective in the treatment of perinatal depression, with effects that last at least up to 6-12 months and probably also have effects on social support, anxiety, functional impairment, parental stress, and marital stress.

Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy-based interventions for maternal perinatal depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Depression during the perinatal period (during pregnancy and the year after childbirth) is common and associated with a range of negative effects for mothers, infants, family members, and wider society. Although existing evidence suggests cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based interventions are effective for perinatal depression, less is known about the effect of CBT-based interventions on important secondary outcomes, and a number of potential clinical and methodological moderators have not been examined.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis primarily examined the effectiveness of CBT-based interventions for perinatal depression on symptoms of depression. Secondary aims examined the effectiveness of CBT-based interventions for perinatal depression on symptoms of anxiety, stress, parenting, perceived social support, and perceived parental competence; and explored clinical and methodological moderators potentially associated with effectiveness. A systematic search of electronic databases and other sources was performed up to November 2021. We included randomized controlled trials comparing CBT-based interventions for perinatal depression with control conditions allowing for the isolation of the effects of CBT.

RESULTS

In total, 31 studies (5291 participants) were included in the systematic review and 26 studies (4658 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall effect size was medium (hedges g = - 0.53 [95% CI - 0.65 to - 0.40]); with high heterogeneity. Significant effects were also found for anxiety, individual stress, and perceived social support, however few studies examined secondary outcomes. Subgroup analysis identified type of control, type of CBT, and type of health professional as significant moderators of the main effect (symptoms of depression). Some concerns of risk of bias were present in the majority of studies and one study had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

CBT-based interventions for depression during the perinatal period appear effective, however results should be interpreted with caution given high levels of heterogeneity and low quality of included studies. There is a need to further investigate possibly important clinical moderators of effect, including the type of health professional delivering interventions. Further, results indicate a need to establish a minimum core data set to improve the consistency of secondary outcome collection across trials and to design and conduct trials with longer-term follow-up periods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42020152254 .

Only Small Effects of Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Biomarker Levels of Inflammation and Stress: A Preregistered Systematic Review and Two Three-Level Meta-Analyses

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have a positive effect on biomarkers of inflammation and stress in patients with psychiatric disorders and physical illnesses. Regarding subclinical populations, results are less clear. The present meta-analysis addressed the effects of MBIs on biomarkers in psychiatric populations and among healthy, stressed, and at-risk populations. All available biomarker data were investigated with a comprehensive approach, using two three-level meta-analyses. Pre-post changes in biomarker levels within treatment groups (k = 40 studies, total N = 1441) and treatment effects compared to control group effects, using only RCT data (k = 32, total N = 2880), were of similar magnitude, Hedges g = -0.15 (95% CI = [-0.23, -0.06], p < 0.001) and g = -0.11 (95% CI = [-0.23, 0.001], p = 0.053). Effects increased in magnitude when including available follow-up data but did not differ between type of sample, MBI, biomarker, and control group or duration of the MBI. This suggests that MBIs may ameliorate biomarker levels in both psychiatric and subclinical populations to a small extent. However, low study quality and evidence of publication bias may have impacted on the results. More large and preregistered studies are still needed in this field of research.

Peer-provided psychological intervention for Syrian refugees: results of a randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of Problem Management Plus

BACKGROUND

The mental health burden among refugees in high-income countries (HICs) is high, whereas access to mental healthcare can be limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effectiveness of a peer-provided psychological intervention (Problem Management Plus; PM+) in reducing symptoms of common mental disorders (CMDs) among Syrian refugees in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We conducted a single-blind, randomised controlled trial among adult Syrian refugees recruited in March 2019-December 2021 (No. NTR7552). Individuals with psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) >15) and functional impairment (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) >16) were allocated to PM+ in addition to care as usual (PM+/CAU) or CAU only. Participants were reassessed at 1-week and 3-month follow-up. Primary outcome was depression/anxiety combined (Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HSCL-25) at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included depression (HSCL-25), anxiety (HSCL-25), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition; PCL-5), impairment (WHODAS 2.0) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS; Psychological Outcomes Profiles). Primary analysis was intention-to-treat.

FINDINGS

Participants (n=206; mean age=37 years, 62% men) were randomised into PM+/CAU (n=103) or CAU (n=103). At 3-month follow-up, PM+/CAU had greater reductions on depression/anxiety relative to CAU (mean difference -0.25; 95% CI -0.385 to -0.122; p=0.0001, Cohen's d=0.41). PM+/CAU also showed greater reductions on depression (p=0.0002, Cohen's d=0.42), anxiety (p=0.001, Cohen's d=0.27), PTSD symptoms (p=0.0005, Cohen's d=0.39) and self-identified problems (p=0.03, Cohen's d=0.26), but not on impairment (p=0.084, Cohen's d=0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

PM+ effectively reduces symptoms of CMDs among Syrian refugees. A strength was high retention at follow-up. Generalisability is limited by predominantly including refugees with a resident permit.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Peer-provided psychological interventions should be considered for scale-up in HICs.

Effects of psychological treatment for depression among people not actively seeking help: a meta-analysis

Although psychological treatments have been found to be effective for depression in adults, many individuals with depression do not actively seek help. It is currently unclear whether psychological treatments are effective among those not actively seeking help. Besides, little is known about the proportion of patients who completed a screening questionnaire who end up in a clinical trial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of 52 randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for adults with a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression against control conditions (care-as-usual, waiting list, and other inactive treatment). Only studies recruiting participants who do not actively seek help (participants who have been recruited through screening instead of advertisements and clinical referrals) were included. To obtain an overall effect estimate of psychotherapy, we pooled all post-test differences with a random-effects model. We found that psychological treatments had a moderate to high effect on reducing depressive symptoms compared to control groups [g = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.69]. Heterogeneity was high (I² = 75%; 95% CI 68-80). At 12 months' follow-up, the effects were small but significant (6-8 months: g = 0.33; 95% CI 0.14-0.52; 9-12 months: g = 0.24; 95% CI 0.11-0.37). As a secondary outcome, we found that 13% of patients who completed a screening questionnaire met the inclusion criteria for depression and agreed to be randomized in the trial. Based on the current evidence, psychological treatments for depression might be effective for depressed patients who are not actively seeking help.

The Effectiveness of an Intensive Inpatient Psychotherapy Program for Chronic Depression: A naturalistic comparison with wait list

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic depression (CD) typically have an early symptom onset, more psychiatric comorbidities, more treatment attempts, and more frequent and longer inpatient hospitalizations than patients with major depressive disorders. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of an intensive inpatient psychotherapy program for patients with chronic depression (CD). The primary research question was whether two intensive psychodynamic inpatient treatments, affect phobia therapy (APT) and VITA, were superior to an outpatient wait list condition, receiving treatment as usual (TAU), at completion of treatment. To investigate if a potential difference between the intensive treatment and the wait list control group was dependent on a specific psychotherapeutic model, the study contrasted two therapies with similar intensity, but different theoretical rationales.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty patients with CD were included in a naturalistic study. Patients were assessed at four time points; assessment, start of therapy, end of therapy and 1-year follow-up. Three comparisons were performed with patients matched across groups; Intensive inpatient treatment program (APT + VITA) vs wait list during treatment, APT vs VITA during treatment and APT vs VITA during follow-up. The outcome measure was the BDI-II.

RESULTS

Intensive inpatient treatment program vs. wait list showed a significant difference in favor of the intensive treatment. No significant differences were found between APT and VITA during therapy or follow-up; but both groups had large effect sizes during treatment, which were maintained during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The intensive inpatient psychotherapy program showed superior effect on chronic depression over an outpatient wait list condition receiving treatment as usual (TAU), but no significant differences were found between the two intensive inpatient psychodynamic treatments. The results provide support for the effectiveness of an intensive inpatient psychotherapy program in treatment of chronic and severe disorders, such as CD, which could be of benefit for policymakers and the health care sector as they are allocating recourses efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05221567) on February 3rd, 2022.

Effectiveness of a lifestyle modification programme in the treatment of depression symptoms in primary care

Background

Depression symptoms are prevalent in the general population, and their onset and continuation may be related to biological and psychosocial factors, many of which are related to lifestyle aspects. Health promotion and lifestyle modification programmes (LMPs) may be effective on reducing the symptoms. The objective of this study was to analyse the clinical effectiveness of a LMP and a LMP plus Information and Communication Technologies, when compared to Treatment as Usual (TAU) over 6 months. The interventions were offered as an adjuvant treatment delivered in Primary Healthcare Centers (PHCs) for people with depression symptoms.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial. Participants were recruited from several PHCs. Those participants visiting general practitioner for any reason, who also met the inclusion criteria (scoring 10 to 30 points on the Beck II Self-Applied Depression Inventory) were invited to take part in the study. TAU+LMP consisted of six weekly 90-min group sessions focused on improving lifestyle. TAU+LMP + ICTs replicated the TAU+LMP format, plus the addition of a wearable smartwatch to measure daily minutes walked and sleep patterns. A total of 188 participants consented to participate in the study and were randomized. We used linear mixed models, with a random intercept and an unstructured covariance to evaluate the impact of the interventions compared to TAU.

Results

Both interventions showed a statistically significant reduction on depressive symptoms compared to TAU (TAU+LMP vs. TAU slope difference, b = −3.38, 95% CI= [−5.286, −1.474] p = 0.001 and TAU+LMP+ICTs vs. TAU slope difference, b = −4.05, 95% CI = [−5.919, −2.197], p < 0.001). These reductions imply a moderate effect size. In the TAU+LMP+ICTs there was a significant increase regarding minutes walking per week (b = 99.77) and adherence to Mediterranean diet (b = 0.702). In the TAU+LMP there was a significant decrease regarding bad sleep quality (b = −1.24).

Conclusion

TAU+LMPs administered in PHCs to people experiencing depression symptoms were effective on reducing these symptoms compared to TAU. They also have a positive impact on changing several lifestyle factors. These findings indicate that these interventions can be promising strategies for PHCs.

Intensity of Treatment as Usual and Its Impact on the Effects of Face-to-Face and Internet-Based Psychotherapy for Depression: A Preregistered Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Treatment as usual (TAU) is the most frequently used control group in randomized trials of psychotherapy for depression. Concerns have been raised that the heterogeneity of treatments in TAU leads to biased estimates of psychotherapy efficacy and to an unclear difference between TAU and control groups like waiting list (WL).

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the impact of control group intensity (i.e., amount and degree to which elements of common depression treatments are provided) on the effects of face-to-face and internet-based psychotherapy for depression.

METHODS

We conducted a preregistered meta-analysis (www.osf.io/4mzyd). We included trials comparing psychotherapy with TAU or WL in patients with symptoms of unipolar depression. Six indicators were used to assess control group intensity.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Standardized mean difference (SMD) of psychotherapy and control in depressive symptoms at treatment termination.

RESULTS

We included 89 trials randomizing 14,474 patients to 113 psychotherapy conditions and 89 control groups (TAU in 42 trials, WL in 47 trials). Control group intensity predicted trial results in preregistered (one-sided ps < 0.042) and exploratory analyses. Psychotherapy effects were significantly smaller (one-sided p = 0.002) in trials with higher intensity TAU (SMD = 0.324, CI 0.209 to 0.439) than in trials with lower intensity TAU (SMD = 0.628, CI 0.455 to 0.801). Psychotherapy effects against lower intensity TAU did not differ from effects against WL (two-sided p = 0.663).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that variation in TAU intensity impacts the outcome of trials. More scrutiny in the design of control groups for clinical trials is recommended.

Time-Dependent Changes in Depressive Symptoms among Control Participants in Digital-based Psychological Intervention Studies: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Digital-based psychological interventions (DPIs) have been shown to be efficacious in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dealing with depression in adults. However, the effects of control comparators in these DPI studies have been largely overlooked, and they may vary in their effects on depression management.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analytical study aimed to provide a quantitative estimate of the within-subject effects of control groups across different time intervals and explore the moderating effects of control types and symptom severity at baseline.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in late September 2021 on selected electronic databases: PubMed; ProQuest; Web of Science; and the Ovid system with MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase. The control conditions in 107 RCTs with a total of 11,803 adults with depressive symptoms were included in the meta-analysis, and effect sizes (Hedges g) were calculated using the standardized mean difference approach. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2.

RESULTS

The control conditions collectively yielded small to moderate effects in reducing depressive symptoms within 8 weeks since the baseline assessment (g=-0.358, 95% CI -0.434 to -0.281). The effects grew to moderate within 9 to 24 weeks (g=-0.549, 95% CI -0.638 to -0.460) and peaked at g=-0.810 (95% CI -0.950 to -0.670) between 25 and 48 weeks. The effects were maintained at moderate to large ranges (g=-0.769, 95% CI -1.041 to -0.498) beyond 48 weeks. The magnitude of the reduction differed across the types of control and severity of symptoms. Care as usual was the most powerful condition of all and produced a large effect (g=-0.950, 95% CI -1.161 to -0.739) in the medium term. The findings showed that waitlist controls also produced a significant symptomatic reduction in the short term (g=-0.291, 95% CI -0.478 to -0.104), refuting the previous suspicion of a nocebo effect. In addition, a large effect on depressive symptom reduction in the long term (g=-1.091, 95% CI -1.210 to -0.972) was noted among participants with severe levels of depressive symptoms at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided evidence that depressive symptoms generally reduced over time among control conditions in research trials of DPIs. Given that different control conditions produce variable and significant levels of symptomatic reduction, future intervention trials must adopt an RCT design and should consider the contents of control treatments when investigating the efficacy of DPIs. The results of waitlist controls confirmed previous findings of spontaneous recovery among people with mild to moderate depressive symptoms in face-to-face studies. Researchers may adopt watchful waiting as participants wait for the availability of digital-based psychological services.

Scalable psychological interventions for Syrian refugees in Europe and the Middle East: STRENGTHS study protocol for a prospective individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization's (WHO) scalable psychological interventions, such as Problem Management Plus (PM+) and Step-by-Step (SbS) are designed to be cost-effective non-specialist delivered interventions to reduce symptoms of common mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The STRENGTHS consortium aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation of the individual format of PM+ and its group version (gPM+), as well as of the digital SbS intervention among Syrian refugees in seven countries in Europe and the Middle East. This is a study protocol for a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate (1) overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and (2) treatment moderators of PM+, gPM+ and SbS with Syrian refugees.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Five pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and seven fully powered RCTs conducted within STRENGTHS will be combined into one IPD meta-analytic dataset. The RCTs include Syrian refugees of 18 years and above with elevated psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10>15)) and impaired daily functioning (WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0>16)). Participants are randomised into the intervention or care as usual control group, and complete follow-up assessments at 1-week, 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety (25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist). Secondary outcomes include daily functioning (WHODAS 2.0), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS). We will conduct a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using linear mixed models. Quality of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach, and the economic evaluation approach will be assessed using the CHEC-list.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Local ethical approval has been obtained for each RCT. This IPD meta-analysis does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta-analytic evaluation of recent meta-analyses

Mental disorders represent a worldwide public health concern. Psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies are recommended as first line treatments. However, evidence has emerged that their efficacy may be overestimated, due to a variety of shortcomings in clinical trials (e.g., publication bias, weak control conditions such as waiting list). We performed an umbrella review of recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for the main mental disorders in adults. We selected meta-analyses that formally assessed risk of bias or quality of studies, excluded weak comparators, and used effect sizes for target symptoms as primary outcome. We searched PubMed and PsycINFO and individual records of the Cochrane Library for meta-analyses published between January 2014 and March 2021 comparing psychotherapies or pharmacotherapies with placebo or treatment-as-usual (TAU), or psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies head-to-head, or the combination of psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy to either monotherapy. One hundred and two meta-analyses, encompassing 3,782 RCTs and 650,514 patients, were included, covering depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance use disorders, insomnia, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and bipolar disorder. Across disorders and treatments, the majority of effect sizes for target symptoms were small. A random effect meta-analytic evaluation of the effect sizes reported by the largest meta-analyses per disorder yielded a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26-0.42) for psychotherapies and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.32-0.41) for pharmacotherapies compared with placebo or TAU. The SMD for head-to-head comparisons of psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies was 0.11 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.26). The SMD for the combined treatment compared with either monotherapy was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.44). Risk of bias was often high. After more than half a century of research, thousands of RCTs and millions of invested funds, the effect sizes of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders are limited, suggesting a ceiling effect for treatment research as presently conducted. A paradigm shift in research seems to be required to achieve further progress.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Available evidence on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare and rank the different types and formats of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We searched eight databases and other international registers up to 31 December 2020. The pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses estimated pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ORs with random-effects model. Efficacy at post-treatment and follow-up, acceptability, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured.

FINDINGS

We included 56 randomised controlled trials with 5327 patients comparing 14 different types of psychotherapies and 3 control conditions. For efficacy, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), behavioural therapy (BT), individual trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing, and group TF-CBT were significantly superior to all control conditions at post-treatment and follow-up (SMDs between -2.42 and -0.25). Moreover, CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT were more effective than supportive therapy (SMDs between -1.92 and -0.49). Results for depressive and anxiety symptoms were similar to the findings for the primary outcome. Most of the results were rated as 'moderate' to 'very low' in terms of confidence of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT appear to be the best choices of psychotherapy for PTSD in young patients. Other types and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Clinicians should consider the importance of each outcome and the patients' preferences in real clinical practice.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for DSM-5 anxiety disorders

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).