The efficacy of a behavioral activation intervention among depressed US Latinos with limited English language proficiency: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is a determinant of health and important for autonomous decision-making. Migrants are at high risk for limited HL. Improving HL is important for equitable promotion of migrants' health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving HL in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants respond differently to the identified interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran electronic searches to 2 February 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. We also searched trial registries. We used a study filter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (RCT classifier).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs addressing HL either as a concept or its components (access, understand, appraise, apply health information).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and followed the PRISMA-E guidelines. Outcome categories were: a) HL, b) quality of life (QoL), c) knowledge, d) health outcomes, e) health behaviour, f) self-efficacy, g) health service use and h) adverse events. We conducted meta-analysis where possible, and reported the remaining results as a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs and six cluster-RCTs (8249 participants), all conducted in high-income countries. Participants were migrants with a wide range of conditions. All interventions were adapted to culture, language and literacy. We did not find evidence that HL interventions cause harm, but only two studies assessed adverse events (e.g. anxiety). Many studies reported results for short-term assessments (less than six weeks after total programme completion), reported here. For several comparisons, there were also findings at later time points, which are presented in the review text. Compared with no HL intervention (standard care/no intervention) or an unrelated HL intervention (similar intervention but different information topic) Self-management programmes (SMP) probably improve self-efficacy slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.50; 2 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty). SMP may improve HIV-related HL (understanding (mean difference (MD) 4.25, 95% CI 1.32 to 7.18); recognition of HIV terms (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.36)) (1 study, 69 participants). SMP may slightly improve health behaviours (3 studies, 514 participants), but may have little or no effect on knowledge (2 studies, 321 participants) or subjective health status (MD 0.38, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.89; 1 study, 69 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain of the effects of SMP on QoL, health service use or adverse events due to a lack of evidence. HL skills building courses (HLSBC) may improve knowledge (MD 10.87, 95% CI 5.69 to 16.06; 2 studies, 111 participants) and any generic HL (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75; 2 studies, 229 participants), but may have little or no effect on depression literacy (MD 0.17, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.62) or any health behaviour (2 studies, 229 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain if HLSBC improve QoL, health outcomes, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events, due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. Audio-/visual education without personal feedback (AVE) probably improves depression literacy (MD 8.62, 95% CI 7.51 to 9.73; 1 study, 202 participants) and health service use (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.07; 1 study, 157 participants), but probably has little or no effect on health behaviour (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 1 study, 135 participants) (moderate certainty). AVE may improve self-efficacy (MD 3.51, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.49; 1 study, 133 participants) and may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.44, 95% CI -2.56 to 19.44; 2 studies, 293 participants) and intention to seek depression treatment (MD 1.8, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.17), with little or no effect on depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL and adverse events. Adapted medical instruction may improve understanding of health information (3 studies, 478 participants), with little or no effect on medication adherence (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.1; 1 study, 200 participants) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL, health outcomes, knowledge, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events. Compared with written information on the same topic SMP probably improves health numeracy slightly (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.25) and probably improves print literacy (MD 9, 95% CI 2.9 to 15.1; 1 study, 209 participants) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.64; 4 studies, 552 participants) (moderate certainty). SMP may improve any disease-specific HL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; 4 studies, 955 participants), knowledge (MD 11.45, 95% CI 4.75 to 18.15; 6 studies, 1101 participants) and some health behaviours (4 studies, 797 participants), with little or no effect on health information appraisal (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.23 to 2.53; 1 study, 329 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain whether SMP improves QoL, health outcomes, health service use or adverse events, due to a lack of evidence or low/very low-certainty evidence. AVE probably has little or no effect on diabetes HL (MD 2, 95% CI -0.15 to 4.15; 1 study, 240 participants), but probably improves information appraisal (MD -9.88, 95% CI -12.87 to -6.89) and application (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.77) (1 study, 608 participants; moderate certainty). AVE may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.35, 95% CI -0.32 to 17.02; low certainty). No short-term evidence was found for QoL, depression, health behaviour, self-efficacy, health service use or adverse events. AVE compared with another AVE We are uncertain whether narrative videos are superior to factual knowledge videos as the evidence is of very low certainty. Gender differences Female migrants' diabetes HL may improve slightly more than that of males, when receiving AVE (MD 5.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.38; 1 study, 118 participants), but we do not know whether female or male migrants benefit differently from other interventions due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adequately powered studies measuring long-term effects (more than six months) of HL interventions in female and male migrants are needed, using well-validated tools and representing various healthcare systems.

Feasibility, acceptability and future adaptation of the Chinese translated Behavioural activation (C-BA) treatment for depression: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Although depression is prevalent among Chinese international students (CIS), only 4% of CIS seek treatment. Behavioural activation (BA) has been suggested as a culturally sensitive treatment for depression that has the potential to meet the clinical needs of CIS. The current pilot study tested the feasibility, acceptability and themes for future cultural adaptations of a Chinese translated BA treatment (C-BA) among CIS.

METHODS

Six CIS with elevated depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory, BDI ≥ 14) completed a six-session individual C-BA treatment and assessments at pre- and post-treatment and a 1-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures included treatment feasibility, acceptability and qualitative interview data informing future adaption of C-BA. Exploratory analyses examined group changes in depressive symptoms over time and clinically significant symptom changes on individual levels.

RESULTS

All participants found the treatment to be highly feasible and culturally acceptable, and were highly engaged in the treatment. Themes of future cultural adaptions were generated from the qualitative interviews. Significant decreases in depressive symptoms were observed at a one1-month post-treatment follow-up assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary evidence suggests that C-BA has the potential to be a culturally sensitive treatment for depression among CIS. CIS demonstrated openness to psychotherapy and high treatment engagement.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Behavioural activation is a brief psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to change the way a person interacts with their environment. Behavioural activation is increasingly receiving attention as a potentially cost-effective intervention for depression, which may require less resources and may be easier to deliver and implement than other types of psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with other psychological therapies for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with medication for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/placebo no treatment for depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CCMD-CTR (all available years), CENTRAL (current issue), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards), Ovid EMBASE (1980 onwards), and Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards) on the 17 January 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 'behavioural activation', or the main elements of behavioural activation for depression in participants with clinically diagnosed depression or subthreshold depression. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches. We searched international trials registries via the World Health Organization's trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression or symptoms of depression in adults aged 18 or over. We excluded RCTs conducted in inpatient settings and with trial participants selected because of a physical comorbidity. Studies were included regardless of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments were also performed by two review authors in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with 5495 participants were included; 51 parallel group RCTs and two cluster-RCTs. We found moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation had greater short-term efficacy than treatment as usual (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 7 RCTs, 1533 participants), although this difference was no longer evident in sensitivity analyses using a worst-case or intention-to-treat scenario. Compared with waiting list, behavioural activation may be more effective, but there were fewer data in this comparison and evidence was of low certainty (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.09; 1 RCT, 26 participants). No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for behavioural activation versus placebo and behavioural activation versus no treatment. We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment efficacy between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 601 participants). Fewer data were available for other comparators. No evidence of a difference in short term-efficacy was found between behavioural activation and third-wave CBT (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 98 participants; low certainty), and psychodynamic therapy (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99; 1 RCT,60 participants; very low certainty). Behavioural activation was more effective than humanistic therapy (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.95; 2 RCTs, 46 participants; low certainty) and medication (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.76; 1 RCT; 141 participants; moderate certainty), but both of these results were based on a small number of trials and participants. No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for comparisons between behavioural activation versus interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapies. There was moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation might have lower treatment acceptability (based on dropout rate) than treatment as usual in the short term, although the data did not confirm a difference and results lacked precision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31; 14 RCTs, 2518 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence did not suggest any difference in short-term acceptability between behavioural activation and waiting list (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93; 8 RCTs. 359 participants), no treatment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.09; 3 RCTs, 187 participants), medication (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; 2 RCTs, 243 participants), or placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67; 1 RCT; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). No evidence on treatment acceptability was available comparing behavioural activation versus psychodynamic therapy. Low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (dropout rate) between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 12 RCTs, 1195 participants), third-wave CBT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, 147 participants); humanistic therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.55; 2 RCTs, 96 participants) (very low certainty), and interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, 123 participants). Results from medium- and long-term primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are summarised in the text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that behavioural activation may be more effective than humanistic therapy, medication, and treatment as usual, and that it may be no less effective than CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or being placed on a waiting list. However, our confidence in these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (based on dropouts) between behavioural activation and most comparison groups (CBT, humanistic therapy, waiting list, placebo, medication, no treatment or treatment as usual). Again, our confidence in all these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. No data were available about the efficacy of behaioural activation compared with placebo, or about treatment acceptability comparing behavioural activation and psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal, cognitive analytic and integrative therapies. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and better quality RCTs of behavioural activation and by assessing working mechanisms of behavioural activation.

Disclosing psychiatric diagnosis to close others: a cultural framework based on older Latin@s participating in a depression trial in Los Angeles county

Objectives: The objective of this qualitative study is to explore disclosure of depression diagnosis to close others among older adult Latinas/Latinos (Latin@s) recruited from an urban health care system specializing in low-cost community health services in Los Angeles County. Method: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 35 older Latinos who participated in an NIMH-funded randomized depression trial. Results: Psychiatric disclosure is a dynamic, multidimensional, and culturally ladened experience that entails weighing in on interrelated factors. This study presents a cultural framework of depression disclosure that highlights 15 facilitators and barriers which were organized into three intrinsic and relational domains: (a) individual emotional and support needs; (b) personal characteristics of the recipient of the disclosure; and (c) quality of the interpersonal interactions between the patient and recipient. Conclusion: Knowledge of Latin@ older adults' perspectives and experiences with depression disclosure can inform strategies to support older Latin@s facing the dilemma of disclosure.

Pilot Randomized Trial of a Self-Help Behavioral Activation Mobile App for Utilization in Primary Care

Mobile technologies can be leveraged to meet the need for evidence-based psychological depression treatment via primary care. The purpose of the present study was to preliminarily examine the feasibility and efficacy of a self-help brief behavioral activation mobile application (app; "Moodivate") for depressive symptoms among adults treated via primary care. Participants (N = 52) were recruited from primary care practices between January and December 2017 and were randomized 2:2:1 to receive (a) Moodivate, (b) an active control cognitive-behavioral therapy-based mobile app ("MoodKit"), or (c) treatment as usual (TAU; no app). Participants completed assessments of depressive symptoms weekly for 8 weeks. App analytics data were captured to examine Moodivate feasibility (analytics unavailable for control app). Moodivate participants on average had 46.76 (SD = 30.10) app sessions throughout the trial duration, spent 3.50 (2.76) minutes using the app per session, and spent 120.76 (101.02) minutes using the app in total throughout the trial. Nearly 70% of Moodivate participants continued to use the app 1 month after trial enrollment and 50% at the end of the 8-week follow-up period. A generalized estimating equation model examining change in depressive symptoms over time by treatment condition indicated a significant interaction between time and treatment condition (χ2 = 42.21, df = 14, p < .001). As compared to TAU, participants in both app conditions evidenced significant decreases in depressive symptoms over time, and these treatment gains were sustained across the trial period. These results preliminarily indicate feasibility of Moodivate as well as efficacy of both Moodivate and MoodKit for the treatment of depression among adults recruited via primary care. Future studies should focus on larger-scale examinations of treatment efficacy and effectiveness across primary care settings.

Pilot randomized controlled trial of a Spanish-language Behavioral Activation mobile app (¡Aptívate!) for the treatment of depressive symptoms among united states Latinx adults with limited English proficiency

BACKGROUND

To address the need for disseminable, evidence-based depression treatment options for Latinx adults with limited English proficiency (LEP), our team developed ¡Aptívate!, a Spanish-language Behavioral Activation self-help mobile application. Primary aims of this study were to: 1) examine feasibility and uptake of ¡Aptívate! among depressed Latinx adults with LEP and 2) preliminarily examine ¡Aptívate! efficacy for depression treatment.

METHODS

Participants (N = 42) with elevated depressive symptoms were randomized 2:1:1 to: 1) ¡Aptívate! (n = 22), 2) an active control Spanish-language app ("iCouch CBT"; n = 9), or 3) Treatment As Usual (i.e., no app; n = 11). Feasibility was assessed via self-reported app utilization and app analytics data. Depressive symptoms were assessed weekly for eight weeks via self report.

RESULTS

All ¡Aptívate! participants used the app at least once, 81.8% of participants used the app ≥8 times, and 36.4% of participants used the app ≥56 times. Weekly retention was strong: 72.7% and 50% of participants continued to use the app at one- and two-months post-enrollment, respectively. Generalized Estimating Equation models indicated a significant interaction between time and treatment, such that ¡Aptívate! participants reported significantly lower depressive symptoms over time than TAU. Depressive symptoms did not differ on average across time between the iCouch and TAU conditions, nor between iCouch and ¡Aptívate!.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include small sample size, limited follow-up, and lack of analytics data for the active control condition.

CONCLUSIONS

With further research, ¡Aptívate! may offer a feasible, efficacious approach to extend the reach of evidence-based depression treatment for Latinx adults with LEP.

The efficacy of adding group behavioral activation to usual care in patients with fibromyalgia and major depression: design and protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Background

Fibromyalgia and major depression frequently co-occur. Patients with both conditions have a worse prognosis and higher disability, and their treatment options are scarce. Behavioral activation (BA) may be an especially useful intervention for these patients, as it targets mechanisms of action that seem to be common to both disorders. Nevertheless, its efficacy has not been examined in people with both conditions. We describe the design and rationale of a randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding BA (applied in groups) to usual care in order to reduce the severity of depressive symptoms (primary outcome) among Chilean women with fibromyalgia and major depression (N = 90). Pain intensity, fibromyalgia impact, pain catastrophizing and hypervigilance, physical health symptoms, environmental reward, and BA will be evaluated as secondary outcomes.

Methods

Women will be randomized to an experimental arm (n = 45) which will receive usual care (UC) for fibromyalgia with comorbid depression plus BA; and a comparison arm, which will receive only UC for fibromyalgia with comorbid depression (n = 45). Outcome assessment will take place at four time points: (1) at baseline, (2) when the experimental arm is under treatment (between sessions 6 and 7), (3) immediately after the experimental arm complete the treatment, and (4) at a 3-month follow-up. The following instruments will be used: Chilean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Composed Pain Intensity Index, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised (FIQ-R), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15), Reward Probability Index (RPI), and the Activation subscale of the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS).

Discussion

We expect that, after treatment, the group receiving BA should experience greater reductions in the primary and secondary outcomes than the group receiving only UC. These reductions should be both statistically and clinically significant and will be maintained at follow-up. This study will contribute to facilitate the integrated treatment of fibromyalgia and depression.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov under the name “Testing Interventions for Patients with Fibromyalgia and Depression,” Identifier: NCT03207828. Registered on 5 July 2017 (last update posted 21 September 2017).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3037-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and Preliminary Feasibility Study of a Brief Behavioral Activation Mobile Application (Behavioral Apptivation) to Be Used in Conjunction With Ongoing Therapy

Depressive symptoms are the most frequently treated psychiatric condition in the United States. Brief behavioral activation treatment for depression (BATD) is a popular, evidence-based psychotherapy with strong research support for the treatment of depression. In this paper, we describe the development and initial pilot feasibility testing of a BATD mobile application (Behavioral Apptivation) to be used by patients and therapists in conjunction with BATD therapy. We present information regarding the app development process as well as results from a small open-label feasibility trial of the app utilized in conjunction with individual BATD. We include a case series from the open-label trial highlighting how Behavioral Apptivation can be utilized in clinical practice.

Synergistic effects of pain intensity and anxiety sensitivity in relation to anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders among economically disadvantaged latinos in a community-based primary care setting

The present investigation examined the interactive effects of anxiety sensitivity and pain intensity in relation to anxious arousal, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms and disorders among 203 Latino adults with an annual income of less than $30,000 (84.4% female; M_age=38.9, SD=11.3 and 98.6% used Spanish as their first language) who attended a community-based primary healthcare clinic. As expected, the interaction between anxiety sensitivity and pain intensity was significantly related to increased anxious arousal, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms as well as number of depressive/anxiety disorder diagnoses. The form of the significant interactions indicated that participants reporting co-occurring higher levels of anxiety sensitivity and pain intensity evinced the greatest levels of anxious arousal, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms as well as higher levels of depressive and anxiety disorders. These data provide novel empirical evidence suggesting that there is clinically-relevant interplay between anxiety sensitivity and pain intensity in regard to a relatively wide array of anxiety and depressive variables among Latinos in a primary care medical setting.