Residual posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms after provision of brief behavioral intervention in low- and middle-income countries: An individual-patient data meta-analysis

The future of psychological treatments: The Marburg Declaration

Although psychological treatments are broadly recognized as evidence-based interventions for various mental disorders, challenges remain. For example, a substantial proportion of patients receiving such treatments do not fully recover, and many obstacles hinder the dissemination, implementation, and training of psychological treatments. These problems require those in our field to rethink some of our basic models of mental disorders and their treatments, and question how research and practice in clinical psychology should progress. To answer these questions, a group of experts of clinical psychology convened at a Think-Tank in Marburg, Germany, in August 2022 to review the evidence and analyze barriers for current and future developments. After this event, an overview of the current state-of-the-art was drafted and suggestions for improvements and specific recommendations for research and practice were integrated. Recommendations arising from our meeting cover further improving psychological interventions through translational approaches, improving clinical research methodology, bridging the gap between more nomothetic (group-oriented) studies and idiographic (person-centered) decisions, using network approaches in addition to selecting single mechanisms to embrace the complexity of clinical reality, making use of scalable digital options for assessments and interventions, improving the training and education of future psychotherapists, and accepting the societal responsibilities that clinical psychology has in improving national and global health care. The objective of the Marburg Declaration is to stimulate a significant change regarding our understanding of mental disorders and their treatments, with the aim to trigger a new era of evidence-based psychological interventions.

What works for whom and why? Treatment effects and their moderators among forcibly displaced people receiving psychological and psychosocial interventions: study protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Forcibly displaced people (FDP) have a high risk of developing mental disorders such as post-traumatic stress (PTS) disorder. Providing adequate mental healthcare for FDP is crucial but despite overall efficacy of many existing interventions, a large proportion of FDP does not benefit from treatment, highlighting the necessity of further investigating factors contributing to individual differences in treatment outcome. Yet, the few studies that have explored moderators of treatment effects are often insufficiently powered. Therefore, the present Individual Patient Data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) will investigate treatment effects and their moderators-variables related to beneficiaries, providers, intervention and study characteristics in relation to PTS outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature search will be conducted from database inception in the databases PsycINFO, Cochrane, Embase, PTSDpubs and Web of Science. Only studies published in English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch will be considered. Retrieved records will be screened for eligibility. Randomised controlled trials on adult FDP receiving psychological and psychosocial interventions aimed at alleviating symptoms such as PTS compared with a control condition without intervention will be included in this IPD-MA. Subsequently, authors of eligible studies will be contacted to request individual patient data (IPD). All datasets obtained will be synthesised into one large dataset which will be analysed using a one-stage approach by conducting mixed-effects linear regression models (ie, primary analysis). Additionally, aggregate data meta-analyes will be run using a two-stage approach by conducting multivariate regression models including all IPD (transformed) and available meta-data from study reports (ie, secondary analysis). PTS will serve as primary outcome measure, while mental health outcomes other than PTS, attendance, attrition, treatment non-response and adverse outcomes will be examined as secondary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This IPD-MA does not require ethical approval. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022299510.

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.

World Health Organization's low-intensity psychosocial interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of Problem Management Plus and Step-by-Step

Many societies have been recently exposed to humanitarian and health emergencies, which have resulted in a large number of people experiencing significant distress and being at risk to develop mental disorders such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The World Health Organization has released a series of scalable psychosocial interventions for people impaired by distress in communities exposed to adversities. Prominent among these is a low-intensity transdiagnostic psychosocial intervention, Problem Management Plus (PM+), and its digital adaptation Step-by-Step (SbS). This systematic review is the first to summarize the available evidence on the effects of PM+ and SbS. Up to March 8, 2023, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials examining the effects of PM+ or SbS on distress indicators (i.e., general distress; anxiety, depressive or post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; functional impairment, self-identified problems) and positive mental health outcomes (i.e., well-being, quality of life, social support/relationships). We performed random-effects multilevel meta-analyses on standardized mean differences (SMDs) at post-intervention and short-term follow-up assessments. Our search yielded 23 eligible studies, including 5,298 participants. We found a small to medium favorable effect on distress indicators (SMD=-0.45, 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.34) and a small beneficial effect on positive mental health outcomes (SMD=0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.47), which both remained significant at follow-up assessment and were robust in sensitivity analyses. However, our analyses pointed to substantial between-study heterogeneity, which was only partially explained by moderators, and the certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes. These results provide evidence for the effectiveness of PM+ and SbS in reducing distress indicators and promoting positive mental health in populations exposed to adversities, but a larger high-quality evidence base is needed, as well as research on participant-level moderators of the effects of these interventions, their suitability for stepped-care programs, and their cost-effectiveness.

Twelve-month follow-up of a randomised clinical trial of a brief group psychological intervention for common mental disorders in Syrian refugees in Jordan

AIMS

There is increasing evidence that brief psychological interventions delivered by lay providers can reduce common mental disorders in the short-term. This study evaluates the longer-term impact of a brief, lay provider delivered group psychological intervention (Group Problem Management Plus; gPM+) on the mental health of refugees and their children's mental health.

METHODS

This single-blind, parallel, controlled trial randomised 410 adult Syrians in Azraq Refugee Camp in Jordan who screened positive for distress and impaired functioning to either five sessions of gPM+ or enhanced usual care (EUC). Primary outcomes were scores on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25; depression and anxiety scales) assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months Secondary outcomes included disability, posttraumatic stress, personally identified problems, prolonged grief, prodromal psychotic symptoms, parenting behaviour and children's mental health.

RESULTS

Between 15 October 2019 and 2 March 2020, 204 participants were assigned to gPM + and 206 to EUC, and 307 (74.9%) were retained at 12 months. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that although participants in gPM + had greater reductions in depression at 3 months, at 12 months there were no significant differences between treatment arms on depression (mean difference -0.9, 95% CI -3.2 to 1.3; p = 0.39) or anxiety (mean difference -1.7, 95% CI -4.8 to -1.3; p = 0.06). There were no significant differences between conditions for secondary outcomes except that participants in gPM + had greater increases in positive parenting.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term benefits of a brief, psychological programme delivered by lay providers may not be sustained over longer time periods, and there is a need for sustainable programmes that can prolong benefits gained through gPM + .