Cognitive behavioural therapy versus other interventions on mental health in people with sensory impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sensory impairments can negatively affect people's quality of life and daily functioning, including anxiety and depression symptoms. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) could be an effective intervention to alleviate these, however its effectiveness compared to other interventions have not been examined. The aim of this review was to examine the effectiveness of CBT versus other interventions on anxiety and depression symptoms in people with hearing, visual, and other sensory impairments.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a pre-registered protocol (Prospero ID:CRD42023425953). Searches were conducted in across six databases from inception through October 2024. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 18 included studies, interventions for tinnitus yielded a significant effect favouring intervention on anxiety (Hedge's g = 0.5;95 %CI0.3-0.9) and depression symptoms (Hedge's g = 0.4; 95 %CI 0.1-0.6). Interventions for people with hearing loss not related to tinnitus yielded a significant effect favouring intervention on anxiety symptoms (Hedge's g = 0.6;95 %CI 0.2-1.1), but not in depression symptoms (Hedge's g = 0.3;95 %CI -0.0;0.6). When sub-grouped, no significant differences between CBT and other interventions were found. Interventions for people with vision impairment yielded a non-significant difference in depression symptoms (Hedge's g = 0.4;95 %CI -0.0;0.7), with no studies found examining anxiety symptoms.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences were found when comparing CBT versus other interventions in hearing loss. The effectiveness of CBT for people with visual impairment was less clear due to a small number of studies. Future studies should consider other types of sensory impairments.

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Background

Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.

Search Methods

Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.

Selection Criteria

Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Results

The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I 2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.32; I 2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health-related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I 2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I 2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.

Authors’ Conclusions

Twenty-two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short- and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health-related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

Correlates of Physical Activity among Adults with Sight Loss in High-Income-Countries: A Systematic Review

Background: Physical activity (PA) is essential for almost all facets of health; however, research suggests that PA levels among populations with sight loss are critically low. The aim of this review was to identify the correlates of PA among people with sight loss in high income countries, to inform future interventions and policies. Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, The British Journal of Visual Impairment, The Journal of Visual Impairment and grey literature were searched for studies which reported correlates of PA among adults with sight loss. The protocol is available from PROSPERO (CRD42020215596). Results: A total of 29 articles were eligible for review. Evidence from multiple studies reported that the vision impairment category, worse visual acuity, bilateral visual field loss, worse contrast sensitivity, those of the female gender, low self-efficacy, and environmental barriers were associated with lower levels of PA among populations with sight loss. Conclusions: Overall, correlates of PA among people with sight loss in high income countries are complex and vary across different population groups. Health professionals, eye care, and sight loss services should work together to identify people at risk of low PA, and provide a range of services and interventions to influence the modifiable factors that are associated with low PA.

Emotional valence and arousal induced by auditory stimuli among individuals with visual impairment

Despite significant vision loss, humans can still recognize various emotional stimuli via a sense of hearing and express diverse emotional responses, which can be sorted into two dimensions, arousal and valence. Yet, many research studies have been focusing on sighted people, leading to lack of knowledge about emotion perception mechanisms of people with visual impairment. This study aims at advancing knowledge of the degree to which people with visual impairment perceive various emotions – high/low arousal and positive/negative emotions. A total of 30 individuals with visual impairment participated in interviews where they listened to stories of people who became visually impaired, encountered and overcame various challenges, and they were instructed to share their emotions. Participants perceived different kinds and intensities of emotions, depending on their demographic variables such as living alone, loneliness, onset of visual impairment, visual acuity, race/ethnicity, and employment status. The advanced knowledge of emotion perceptions in people with visual impairment is anticipated to contribute toward better designing social supports that can adequately accommodate those with visual impairment.

Interventions in the Scope of Occupational Therapy to Improve Psychosocial Well-Being in Older Adults with Low Vision and Mental Health Concerns: A Systematic Review

Research has found that occupational therapy practitioners focus on functional and participation outcomes in the low vision population, but overlook corresponding psychosocial outcomes in rehabilitation. The purpose of this systematic review is to answer the PICO question: "What is the evidence to support interventions within the scope of occupational therapy for improving psychosocial well-being or quality of life in adults experiencing depression or anxiety as a result of low vision?" The team conducted a search of literature published between 2008 and 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of interventions within the scope of occupational therapy for patients with low vision, and which measured mental health or quality of life factors. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. The majority of the evidence consisted of 1B (45%) and 2B (36%) level randomized control trials. Two studies were 3B level evidence. Mental health outcomes were measured primarily using depression rating scales, although a number of studies also utilized vision-specific quality of life questionnaires. Established intervention themes included behavioral activation plus occupational therapy low vision rehabilitation, cognitive problem-solving approaches, usual care 'plus' skill-based training, and group service delivery approaches. Moderate evidence supports behavioral activation plus occupational therapy low vision rehabilitation, problem-solving approaches, and group service delivery approaches for improving mental health outcomes. There is moderate evidence that does not support usual treatment 'plus' skill-based training to improve mental health.

Environmental and behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in older people with visual impairment

BACKGROUND

Impairment of vision is associated with a decrease in activities of daily living. Avoidance of physical activity in older adults with visual impairment can lead to functional decline and is an important risk factor for falls. The rate of falls and fractures is higher in older people with visual impairment than in age-matched visually normal older people. Possible interventions to reduce activity restriction and prevent falls include environmental and behavioral interventions.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of environmental and behavioral interventions in reducing physical activity limitation, preventing falls and improving quality of life amongst visually impaired older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 2, 2020), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases to 4 February 2020, with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (Q-RCTs) that compared environmental interventions, behavioral interventions or both, versus control (usual care or no intervention); or that compared different types of environmental or behavioral interventions. Eligible study populations were older people (aged 60 and over) with irreversible visual impairment, living in their own homes or in residential settings. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must have included a measure of physical activity or falls, the two primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes included fear of falling, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (686 participants) conducted in five countries (Australia, Hungary, New Zealand, UK, US) with follow-up periods ranging from two to 12 months. Participants in these trials included older adults (mean age 80 years) and were mostly female (69%), with visual impairments of varying severity and underlying causes. Participants mostly lived in their homes and were physically independent. We classified all trials as having high risk of bias for masking of participants, and three trials as having high or unclear risk of bias for all other domains. The included trials evaluated various intervention strategies (e.g. an exercise program versus home safety modifications). Heterogeneity of study characteristics, including interventions and outcomes, (e.g. different fall measures), precluded any meta-analysis. Two trials compared the home safety modification by occupational therapists versus social/home visits. One trial (28 participants) reported physical activity at six months and showed no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (step counts: mean difference (MD) = 321, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1981 to 2623; average walking time (minutes): MD 1.70, 95% CI -24.03 to 27.43; telephone questionnaire for self-reported physical activity: MD -3.68 scores, 95% CI -20.6 to 13.24; low-certainty of evidence for each outcome). Two trials reported the proportion of participants who fell at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.51; 28 participants) and 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, 196 participants) with low-certainty of evidence for each outcome. One trial (28 participants) reported fear of falling at six months, using the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, and found no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (MD 2.55 scores, 95% CI -0.51 to 5.61; low-certainty of evidence). This trial also reported quality of life at six months using 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and showed no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (MD -3.14 scores, 95% CI -10.86 to 4.58; low-certainty of evidence). Five trials compared a behavioral intervention (exercise) versus usual activity or social/home visits. One trial (59 participants) assessed self-reported physical activity at six months and showed no evidence of a difference between groups (MD 9.10 scores, 95% CI -13.85 to 32.5; low-certainty of evidence). Three trials investigated different fall measures at six or 12 months, and found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates (RRs for proportion of fallers ranged from 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01; 41 participants); to 0.93 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.39; 120 participants); low-certainty of evidence for each outcome). Three trials assessed the fear of falling using Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International or the Illinois Fear of Falling Measure from two to 12 months, and found no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (the estimates ranged from -0.88 score (95% CI -2.72 to 0.96, 114 participants) to 1.00 score (95% CI -0.13 to 2.13; 59 participants); low-certainty of evidence). One trial (59 participants) assessed the European Quality of Life scale at six months (MD -0.15 score, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.01), and found no evidence of a clinical difference between groups (low-certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of effect for most of the environmental or behavioral interventions studied for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in visually impaired older people. The certainty of evidence is generally low due to poor methodological quality and heterogeneous outcome measurements. Researchers should form a consensus to adopt standard ways of measuring physical activity and falls reliably in older people with visual impairments. Fall prevention trials should plan to use objectively measured or self-reported physical activity as outcome measures of reduced activity limitation. Future research should evaluate the acceptability and applicability of interventions, and use validated questionnaires to assess the adherence to rehabilitative strategies and performance during activities of daily living.

Physical activity interventions for adults who are visually impaired: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Compared with sighted individuals, people with visual impairment have a higher prevalence of chronic conditions and lower levels of physical activity. This review aims to systematically review physical activity interventions for those with a visual impairment and to assess their effectiveness.

DESIGN

A systematic review of articles reporting physical activity interventions in visually impaired individuals was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched in August 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted on randomised controlled trials with the same outcome measure.

SETTING

Most interventions were conducted in a group setting, with some including an at-home, self-directed component.

PARTICIPANTS

Following identification of a recent systematic review of physical activity interventions in children, our review focused on adults aged 18 years and older with a visual impairment.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included measures of balance, mobility, mental well-being (eg, quality of life), number of falls, muscle strength, flexibility and gait.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers from 17 studies met inclusion criteria. Physical activity components include falls prevention and/or balance-based activities, walking, tai chi, Alexander Technique, Yoga, dance, aerobics and core stability training. Significant results in favour of the intervention were reported most commonly in measures of functional capacity (9/17 studies) and in falls/balance-related outcomes (7/13 studies). The studies identified were generally small and diverse in study design, and risk of bias was high across several categories for most studies. Meta-analyses indicated non-significant effects of the included interventions on the Timed Up and Go, Chair Sit Test and Berg Balance Scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity interventions in individuals with visual impairment incorporating activities such as tai chi, Yoga and dance can have positive results, particularly in physical measures such as mobility and balance. However, when performing a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, the evidence for effectiveness is less clear. More studies with larger sample sizes, stronger designs and longer follow-up periods are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018103638.