Cognitive behavior stress management during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

Task-sharing psychosocial interventions for the prevention of common mental disorders in the perinatal period in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

to assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions delivered through task-sharing approaches for preventing perinatal common mental disorders among women in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following a prespecified protocol registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/qt4y3). We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through June 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 24,442 participants. At post-intervention, task-shared psychosocial interventions, were effective in preventing the development of mental disorders in general (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), and specifically depression (RR 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.75]), but not anxiety disorders (RR 0.46, 95% CI [0.06, 3.33]). Similarly, psychosocial interventions reduced psychological distress (SMD -1.32, 95% CI [-2.28, -0.35]), and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.50, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.16]), and increased parenting self-efficacy (SMD -0.76, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.38]) and social support (SMD -0.72, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.22]). No effect was detected for anxiety symptoms at post-intervention. At follow-up the beneficial effects of interventions progressively decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychosocial interventions delivered through the task-sharing modality are effective in preventing perinatal common mental disorders and fostering positive mental health among women in low- and middle-income countries. However, our findings are tentative, due to the low number of preventative intervention strategies considering outcomes as the incidence of mental disorders, especially in the long-term. This evidence supports calls to implement and scale up psychosocial prevention interventions for perinatal common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management Delivered by a Virtual Human, Teletherapy, and an E-Manual on Psychological and Physiological Outcomes in Adult Women: An Experimental Test

Technology may expand the reach of stress management to broader populations. However, issues with engagement can reduce intervention effectiveness. Technologies with highly social interfaces, such as virtual humans (VH), may offer advantages in this space. However, it is unclear how VH compare to telehealth and e-manuals at delivering psychological interventions. This experiment compared the effects of single laboratory session of Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management (CBSM) delivered by a VH (VH-CBSM), human telehealth (T-CBSM), and an e-manual (E-CBSM) on psychological and physiological outcomes in a community sample of stressed adult women. A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel, mixed design was conducted. Adult women (M age =43.21, SD = 10.70) who self-identified as stressed were randomly allocated to VH-CBSM, T-CBSM, or E-CBSM involving one 90 min session and homework. Perceived stress, stress management skills, negative affect, optimism, relaxation, and physiological stress were measured. Mixed factorial ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction investigated main and interaction effects of time and condition. Participants’ data (N = 38) were analysed (12 = VH-CBSM; 12 = T-CBSM; 14 = E-CBSM). Each condition significantly improved stress, negative affect, optimism, relaxation, and physiological stress over time with large effect sizes. No significant differences were found between conditions on outcomes. Overall, all three technologies showed promise for remotely delivering CBSM in a controlled setting. The findings suggest feasibility of the VH-CBSM delivery approach and support conducting a fully powered RCT to examine its effectiveness when delivering a full 10-week CBSM intervention.

Effect of digital cognitive behavioral therapy on psychological symptoms among perinatal women in high income-countries: A systematic review and meta-regression

Several reviews focused on the use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) across different populations. This review synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of digital CBT on psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms). An extensive search was conducted in 10 databases from inception until August 29, 2021. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed using Hedges' g. The potential sources of heterogeneity were explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression analysis. A total of 18 RCTs in 2514 perinatal women were identified from over 23 countries. The sample size ranged from 25 to 910. Meta-analyses showed that digital CBT significantly reduced depression (g = -0.56, 95% CI: -0.85, -0.27, I² = 84.81%, p < 0.001), anxiety (g = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.44, -0.17, I² = 0%, p < 0.001), and stress (g = -0.75, 95% CI: -0.95, -0.56, I² = 0%, p < 0.001) symptoms at post-intervention and stress symptoms at follow-up (g = -0.52, 95% CI: -0.93, -0.11, I² = 0%, p = 0.01) compared with those in the control group. Subgroup analyses highlighted that the intervention was effective when CBT was combined with other therapeutic components which delivered via a mobile application. Preferable features of intervention should be more than eight sessions and conducted for than 6 weeks among postnatal women. Multivariable meta-regression showed that age was a significant covariate on depression symptoms. The sample size in the selected RCTs was small, and the overall quality of the evidence was very low. Digital CBT is a potential intervention for alleviating psychological outcomes in perinatal women. This review suggests the essential features to optimize the intervention effect. Further well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are necessary.

The Effect of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Depression, Anxiety, and Stress in Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: As a public health emergency of international concern, the COVID-19 outbreak has had a tremendous impact on patients' psychological health. However, studies on psychological interventions in patients with COVID-19 are relatively rare. Objectives: This study examined the effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) in relieving patients' psychological distress during the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods: Ninety-three eligible participants selected by cluster sampling were randomized to an intervention group (N = 47) and a control group (N = 46). Participants in the control group received routine treatment according to the Chinese Management Guidelines for COVID-19, while participants in the intervention group received routine treatment with additional CBT. The Chinese Version of Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) was used to evaluate depression, anxiety, and stress for all participants at baseline and post-intervention. Two-sided t-test, and proportion tests were used to examine the differences between the intervention and control group for each DASS-21 indicator. Univariate linear regression was used to examine the association between chronic disease status and change in each DASS-21 indicator after intervention. Two-way scatter plots were generated to show the association of the length of hospital stay and the changes of each DASS-21 indicator by intervention and control groups. Results: Significant decreases in means were found for scales of depression, anxiety, stress and total DASS-21 in both intervention (p < 0.001) and control group (p = 0.001), with participants in the intervention group having a bigger reduction in means. After the intervention, more participants in the intervention group had no depression or anxiety symptoms than in the control group, but no statistical differences were found (p > 0.05). Compared with participants with chronic disease, participants with no chronic disease had a significantly larger reduction of total DASS-21 scale (coefficient = -4.74, 95% CI: -9.31; -0.17).The length of hospital stay was significantly associated with a greater increase in anxiety scale in the intervention group (p = 0.005), whilst no significant association was found in the control group (p = 0.29). Conclusions: The patients with COVID-19 experienced high levels of anxiety, depression and stress. Our study result highlights the effectiveness of CBT in improving the psychological health among patients with COVID-19, also suggests that CBT should be focused on patients with chronic disease and those who have longer hospital stays. These results have important implications in clinical practice in improving psychological health in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration: ISRCTN68675756. Available at: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN68675756.