Psychological therapies for depression in older adults residing in long-term care settings

BACKGROUND

Depression is common amongst older people residing in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Currently, most residents treated for depression are prescribed antidepressant medications, despite the potential availability of psychological therapies that are suitable for older people and a preference amongst many older people for non-pharmacological treatment approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of psychological therapies for depression in older people living in LTC settings, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list control, and non-specific attentional control; and to compare the effectiveness of different types of psychological therapies in this setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, five grey literature sources, and two trial registers. We performed reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was 31 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of any type of psychological therapy for the treatment of depression in adults aged 65 years and over residing in a LTC facility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. Primary outcomes were level of depressive symptomatology and treatment non-acceptability; secondary outcomes included depression remission, quality of life or psychological well-being, and level of anxious symptomatology. We used Review Manager 5 to conduct meta-analyses, using pairwise random-effects models. For continuous data, we calculated standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using endpoint data, and for dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs with 873 participants; 16 parallel group RCTs and three cluster-RCTs. Most studies compared psychological therapy (typically including elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, reminiscence therapy, or a combination of these) to treatment as usual or to a condition controlling for the effects of attention. We found very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapies were more effective than non-therapy control conditions in reducing symptoms of depression, with a large effect size at end-of-intervention (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.58; 18 RCTs, 644 participants) and at short-term (up to three months) follow-up (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.56; 16 RCTs, 512 participants). In addition, very low-certainty evidence from a single study with 82 participants indicated that psychological therapy was associated with a greater reduction in the number of participants presenting with major depressive disorder compared to treatment as usual control, at end-of-intervention and short-term follow-up. However, given the limited data on the effect of psychological therapies on remission of major depressive disorder, caution is advised in interpreting this result. Participants receiving psychological therapy were more likely to drop out of the trial than participants receiving a non-therapy control (odds ratio 3.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 9.93), which may indicate higher treatment non-acceptability. However, analyses were restricted due to limited dropout case data and imprecise reporting, and the finding should be interpreted with caution. There was very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapy was more effective than non-therapy control conditions in improving quality of life and psychological well-being at short-term follow-up, with a medium effect size (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, 170 participants), but the effect size was small at postintervention (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.82; 6 RCTs, 195 participants). There was very low-certainty evidence of no effect of psychological therapy on anxiety symptoms postintervention (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -2.50 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 115 participants), although results lacked precision, and there was insufficient data to determine short-term outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, and reminiscence therapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared with usual care for LTC residents, but the evidence is very uncertain. Psychological therapies may also improve quality of life and psychological well-being amongst depressed LTC residents in the short term, but may have no effect on symptoms of anxiety in depressed LTC residents, compared to control conditions. However, the evidence for these effects is very uncertain, limiting our confidence in the findings. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and higher-quality RCTs of psychological therapies in LTC, including trials with larger samples, reporting results separately for those with and without cognitive impairment and dementia, and longer-term outcomes to determine when effects wane.

Psychosocial interventions for survivors of rape and sexual assault experienced during adulthood

BACKGROUND

Exposure to rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse has lifelong impacts for mental health and well-being. Prolonged Exposure (PE), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) are among the most common interventions offered to survivors to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological impacts. Beyond such trauma-focused cognitive and behavioural approaches, there is a range of low-intensity interventions along with new and emerging non-exposure based approaches (trauma-sensitive yoga, Reconsolidation of Traumatic Memories and Lifespan Integration). This review presents a timely assessment of international evidence on any type of psychosocial intervention offered to individuals who experienced rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse as adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions on mental health and well-being for survivors of rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse experienced during adulthood.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases and three trials registers. We also checked reference lists of included studies, contacted authors and experts, and ran forward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any study that allocated individuals or clusters of individuals by a random or quasi-random method to a psychosocial intervention that promoted recovery and healing following exposure to rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse in those aged 18 years and above compared with no or minimal intervention, usual care, wait-list, pharmacological only or active comparison(s). We classified psychosocial interventions according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's psychological therapies list.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 studies (1991 to 2021) with 3992 participants randomly assigned to 60 experimental groups (3014; 76%) and 23 inactive comparator conditions (978, 24%). The experimental groups consisted of: 32 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); 10 behavioural interventions; three integrative therapies; three humanist; five other psychologically oriented interventions; and seven other psychosocial interventions. Delivery involved 1 to 20 (median 11) sessions of traditional face-to-face (41) or other individual formats (four); groups (nine); or involved computer-only interaction (six). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 26); two were from South Africa; two from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; with single studies from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Five studies did not disclose a funding source, and all disclosed sources were public funding. Participants were invited from a range of settings: from the community, through the media, from universities and in places where people might seek help for their mental health (e.g. war veterans), in the aftermath of sexual trauma (sexual assault centres and emergency departments) or for problems that accompany the experience of sexual violence (e.g. sexual health/primary care clinics). Participants randomised were 99% women (3965 participants) with just 27 men. Half were Black, African or African-American (1889 participants); 40% White/Caucasian (1530 participants); and 10% represented a range of other ethnic backgrounds (396 participants). The weighted mean age was 35.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 9.6). Eighty-two per cent had experienced rape or sexual assault in adulthood (3260/3992). Twenty-two studies (61%) required fulfilling a measured PTSD diagnostic threshold for inclusion; however, 94% of participants (2239/2370) were reported as having clinically relevant PTSD symptoms at entry. The comparison of psychosocial interventions with inactive controls detected that there may be a beneficial effect at post-treatment favouring psychosocial interventions in reducing PTSD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to -0.44; 16 studies, 1130 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size based on Cohen's D); and depression (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.48; 12 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size). Psychosocial interventions, however, may not increase the risk of dropout from treatment compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 0.85 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.44; 5 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven of the 23 studies (with 801 participants) comparing a psychosocial intervention to an inactive control reported on adverse events, with 21 events indicated. Psychosocial interventions may not increase the risk of adverse events compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 1.92 (95% CI 0.30 to 12.41; 6 studies; 622 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We conducted an assessment of risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool on a total of 49 reported results. A high risk of bias affected 43% of PTSD results; 59% for depression symptoms; 40% for treatment dropout; and one-third for adverse events. The greatest sources of bias were problems with randomisation and missing outcome data. Heterogeneity was also high, ranging from I2 = 30% (adverse events) to I2 = 87% (PTSD).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that survivors of rape, sexual violence and sexual abuse during adulthood may experience a large reduction in post-treatment PTSD symptoms and depressive symptoms after experiencing a psychosocial intervention, relative to comparison groups. Psychosocial interventions do not seem to increase dropout from treatment or adverse events/effects compared to controls. However, the number of dropouts and study attrition were generally high, potentially missing harms of exposure to interventions and/or research participation. Also, the differential effects of specific intervention types needs further investigation. We conclude that a range of behavioural and CBT-based interventions may improve the mental health of survivors of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse in the short term. Therefore, the needs and preferences of individuals must be considered in selecting suitable approaches to therapy and support. The primary outcome in this review focused on the post-treatment period and the question about whether benefits are sustained over time persists. However, attaining such evidence from studies that lack an active comparison may be impractical and even unethical. Thus, we suggest that studies undertake head-to-head comparisons of different intervention types; in particular, of novel, emerging therapies, with one-year plus follow-up periods. Additionally, researchers should focus on the therapeutic benefits and costs for subpopulations such as male survivors and those living with complex PTSD.

Comparative effectiveness of psychological interventions for treating the psychological consequences of sexual abuse in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following sexual abuse, children and young people may develop a range of psychological problems, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a range of behaviour problems. Those working with children and young people experiencing these problems may use one or more of a range of psychological approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effectiveness of psychological interventions compared to other treatments or no treatment controls, to overcome psychological consequences of sexual abuse in children and young people up to 18 years of age. Secondary objectives To rank psychotherapies according to their effectiveness. To compare different 'doses' of the same intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2022 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We reviewed the reference lists of included studies, alongside other work in the field, and communicated with the authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions for sexually abused children and young people up to 18 years old with other treatments or no treatments. Interventions included: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy, family therapy, child centred therapy (CCT), and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR). We included both individual and group formats.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for our primary outcomes (psychological distress/mental health, behaviour, social functioning, relationships with family and others) and secondary outcomes (substance misuse, delinquency, resilience, carer distress and efficacy). We considered the effects of the interventions on all outcomes at post-treatment, six months follow-up and 12 months follow-up. For each outcome and time point with sufficient data, we performed random-effects network and pairwise meta-analyses to determine an overall effect estimate for each possible pair of therapies. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we report the summaries from single studies. Due to the low number of studies in each network, we did not attempt to determine the probabilities of each treatment being the most effective relative to the others for each outcome at each time point. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies (1478 participants) in this review. Most of the participants were female (range: 52% to 100%), and were mainly white. Limited information was provided on socioeconomic status of participants. Seventeen studies were conducted in North America, with the remaining studies conducted in the UK (N = 2), Iran (N = 1), Australia (N = 1) and Democratic Republic of Congo (N = 1). CBT was explored in 14 studies and CCT in eight studies; psychodynamic therapy, family therapy and EMDR were each explored in two studies. Management as usual (MAU) was the comparator in three studies and a waiting list was the comparator in five studies. For all outcomes, comparisons were informed by low numbers of studies (one to three per comparison), sample sizes were small (median = 52, range 11 to 229) and networks were poorly connected. Our estimates were all imprecise and uncertain. Primary outcomes At post-treatment, network meta-analysis (NMA) was possible for measures of psychological distress and behaviour, but not for social functioning. Relative to MAU, there was very low certainty evidence that CCT involving parent and child reduced PTSD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.64 to -0.10), and CBT with only the child reduced PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.96, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.20). There was no clear evidence of an effect of any therapy relative to MAU for other primary outcomes or at any other time point. Secondary outcomes Compared to MAU, there was very low certainty evidence that, at post-treatment, CBT delivered to the child and the carer might reduce parents' emotional reactions (SMD -6.95, 95% CI -10.11 to -3.80), and that CCT might reduce parents' stress. However, there is high uncertainty in these effect estimates and both comparisons were informed only by one study. There was no evidence that the other therapies improved any other secondary outcome. We attributed very low levels of confidence for all NMA and pairwise estimates for the following reasons. Reporting limitations resulted in judgements of 'unclear' to 'high' risk of bias in relation to selection, detection, performance, attrition and reporting bias; the effect estimates we derived were imprecise, and small or close to no change; our networks were underpowered due to the low number of studies informing them; and whilst studies were broadly comparable with regard to settings, the use of a manual, the training of the therapists, the duration of treatment and number of sessions offered, there was considerable variability in the age of participants and the format in which the interventions were delivered (individual or group).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was weak evidence that both CCT (delivered to child and carer) and CBT (delivered to the child) might reduce PTSD symptoms at post-treatment. However, the effect estimates are uncertain and imprecise. For the remaining outcomes examined, none of the estimates suggested that any of the interventions reduced symptoms compared to management as usual. Weaknesses in the evidence base include the dearth of evidence from low- and middle-income countries. Further, not all interventions have been evaluated to the same extent, and there is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for male participants or those from different ethnicities. In 18 studies, the age ranges of participants ranged from 4 to 16 years old or 5 to 17 years old. This may have influenced the way in which the interventions were delivered, received, and consequently influenced outcomes. Many of the included studies evaluated interventions that were developed by members of the research team. In others, developers were involved in monitoring the delivery of the treatment. It remains the case that evaluations conducted by independent research teams are needed to reduce the potential for investigator bias. Studies addressing these gaps would help to establish the relative effectiveness of interventions currently used with this vulnerable population.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Interventions from pregnancy to two years after birth for parents experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder and/or with childhood experience of maltreatment

BACKGROUND

Acceptable, effective and feasible support strategies (interventions) for parents experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) symptoms or with a history of childhood maltreatment may offer an opportunity to support parental recovery, reduce the risk of intergenerational transmission of trauma and improve life-course trajectories for children and future generations. However, evidence relating to the effect of interventions has not been synthesised to provide a comprehensive review of available support strategies. This evidence synthesis is critical to inform further research, practice and policy approaches in this emerging area.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions provided to support parents who were experiencing CPTSD symptoms or who had experienced childhood maltreatment (or both), on parenting capacity and parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, together with checking references and contacting experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All variants of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention delivered in the perinatal period designed to support parents experiencing CPTSD symptoms or with a history of childhood maltreatment (or both), to any active or inactive control. Primary outcomes were parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing and parenting capacity between pregnancy and up to two years postpartum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials for inclusion, extracted data using a pre-designed data extraction form, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We analysed continuous data using mean difference (MD) for outcomes using a single measure, and standardised mean difference (SMD) for outcomes using multiple measures, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data. All data are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook meta-analyses using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included evidence from 1925 participants in 15 RCTs that investigated the effect of 17 interventions. All included studies were published after 2005. Interventions included seven parenting interventions, eight psychological interventions and two service system approaches. The studies were funded by major research councils, government departments and philanthropic/charitable organisations. All evidence was of low or very low certainty. Parenting interventions Evidence was very uncertain from a study (33 participants) assessing the effects of a parenting intervention compared to attention control on trauma-related symptoms, and psychological wellbeing symptoms (postpartum depression), in mothers who had experienced childhood maltreatment and were experiencing current parenting risk factors. Evidence suggested that parenting interventions may improve parent-child relationships slightly compared to usual service provision (SMD 0.45, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.96; I2 = 60%; 2 studies, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between parenting interventions and usual perinatal service in parenting skills including nurturance, supportive presence and reciprocity (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.58; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 149 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of parenting interventions on parents' substance use, relationship quality or self-harm. Psychological interventions Psychological interventions may result in little or no difference in trauma-related symptoms compared to usual care (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.31; I2 = 39%; 4 studies, 247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Psychological interventions may make little or no difference compared to usual care to depression symptom severity (8 studies, 507 participants, low-certainty evidence, SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.03; I2 = 63%). An interpersonally focused cognitive behavioural analysis system of psychotherapy may slightly increase the number of pregnant women who quit smoking compared to usual smoking cessation therapy and prenatal care (189 participants, low-certainty evidence). A psychological intervention may slightly improve parents' relationship quality compared to usual care (1 study, 67 participants, low-certainty evidence). Benefits for parent-child relationships were very uncertain (26 participants, very low-certainty evidence), while there may be a slight improvement in parenting skills compared to usual care (66 participants, low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of psychological interventions on parents' self-harm. Service system approaches One service system approach assessed the effect of a financial empowerment education programme, with and without trauma-informed peer support, compared to usual care for parents with low incomes. The interventions increased depression slightly (52 participants, low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the effects of service system interventions on parents' trauma-related symptoms, substance use, relationship quality, self-harm, parent-child relationships or parenting skills.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to improve parenting capacity or parental psychological or socio-emotional wellbeing in parents experiencing CPTSD symptoms or who have experienced childhood maltreatment (or both). This lack of methodological rigour and high risk of bias made it difficult to interpret the findings of this review. Overall, results suggest that parenting interventions may slightly improve parent-child relationships but have a small, unimportant effect on parenting skills. Psychological interventions may help some women stop smoking in pregnancy, and may have small benefits on parents' relationships and parenting skills. A financial empowerment programme may slightly worsen depression symptoms. While potential beneficial effects were small, the importance of a positive effect in a small number of parents must be considered when making treatment and care decisions. There is a need for further high-quality research into effective strategies for this population.

Multiple session early psychological interventions for the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder

BACKGROUND

The prevention of long-term psychological distress following traumatic events is a major concern. Systematic reviews have suggested that individual psychological debriefing is not an effective intervention at preventing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Over the past 20 years, other forms of intervention have been developed with the aim of preventing PTSD.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of psychological interventions aimed at preventing PTSD in individuals exposed to a traumatic event but not identified as experiencing any specific psychological difficulties, in comparison with control conditions (e.g. usual care, waiting list and no treatment) and other psychological interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and ProQuest's Published International Literature On Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) database to 3 March 2018. An earlier search of CENTRAL and the Ovid databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to May 2016). We handsearched reference lists of relevant guidelines, systematic reviews and included study reports. Identified studies were shared with key experts in the field.We conducted an update search (15 March 2019) and placed any new trials in the 'awaiting classification' section. These will be incorporated into the next version of this review, as appropriate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials of any multiple session (two or more sessions) early psychological intervention or treatment designed to prevent symptoms of PTSD. We excluded single session individual/group psychological interventions. Comparator interventions included waiting list/usual care and active control condition. We included studies of adults who experienced a traumatic event which met the criterion A1 according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) for PTSD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We entered data into Review Manager 5 software. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data with a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where there was heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias and discussed any conflicts with a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

This is an update of a previous review.We included 27 studies with 3963 participants. The meta-analysis included 21 studies of 2721 participants. Seventeen studies compared multiple session early psychological intervention versus treatment as usual and four studies compared a multiple session early psychological intervention with active control condition.Low-certainty evidence indicated that multiple session early psychological interventions may be more effective than usual care in reducing PTSD diagnosis at three to six months' follow-up (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.93; I² = 34%; studies = 5; participants = 758). However, there was no statistically significant difference post-treatment (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; I² = 0%; studies = 5; participants = 556; very low-certainty evidence) or at seven to 12 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.49; studies = 1; participants = 132; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated that there was no statistical difference in dropouts compared with usual care (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.95; I² = 34%; studies = 11; participants = 1154; low-certainty evidence) .At the primary endpoint of three to six months, low-certainty evidence indicated no statistical difference between groups in reducing severity of PTSD (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.02; I² = 34%; studies = 15; participants = 1921), depression (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; I² = 6%; studies = 7; participants = 1009) or anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; I² = 2%; studies = 6; participants = 945).No studies comparing an intervention and active control reported outcomes for PTSD diagnosis. Low-certainty evidence showed that interventions may be associated with a higher dropout rate than active control condition (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.34; studies = 2; participants = 425). At three to six months, low-certainty evidence indicated no statistical difference between interventions in terms of severity of PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.26; I² = 43%; studies = 4; participants = 465), depression (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.23; I² = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 409), anxiety (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.19; I² = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 414) or quality of life (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; studies = 1; participants = 239).None of the included studies reported on adverse events or use of health-related resources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the review found some beneficial effects of multiple session early psychological interventions in the prevention of PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was low due to the high risk of bias in the included trials. The clear practice implication of this is that, at present, multiple session interventions aimed at everyone exposed to traumatic events cannot be recommended. There are a number of ongoing studies, demonstrating that this is a fast moving field of research. Future updates of this review will integrate the results of these new studies.

Psychological therapies for sickle cell disease and pain

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic blood disorders. It occurs when the sickle haemoglobin gene is inherited from both parents. The effects of the condition are: varying degrees of anaemia which, if severe, can reduce mobility; a tendency for small blood capillaries to become blocked causing pain in muscle and bone commonly known as 'crises'; damage to major organs such as the spleen, liver, kidneys, and lungs; and increased vulnerability to severe infections. There are both medical and non-medical complications, and treatment is usually symptomatic and palliative in nature. Psychological interventions for individuals with sickle cell disease might complement current medical treatment, and studies of their efficacy have yielded encouraging results. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence that psychological interventions improve the ability of people with sickle cell disease to cope with their condition.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and the Internet, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions with no (psychological) intervention in people with sickle cell disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified in the searches and seven of these were eligible for inclusion in the review. Five studies, involving 260 participants, provided data for analysis. One study showed that cognitive behaviour therapy significantly reduced the affective component of pain (feelings about pain), mean difference -0.99 (95% confidence interval -1.62 to -0.36), but not the sensory component (pain intensity), mean difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -9.39 to 9.39). One study of family psycho-education was not associated with a reduction in depression. Another study evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy had inconclusive results for the assessment of coping strategies, and showed no difference between groups assessed on health service utilisation. In addition, family home-based cognitive behavioural therapy did not show any difference compared to disease education. One study of patient education on health beliefs showed a significant improvement in attitudes towards health workers, mean difference -4.39 (95% CI -6.45 to -2.33) and medication, mean difference -1.74 (95% CI -2.98 to -0.50). Nonetheless, these results may not apply across all ages, severity of sickle cell disease, types of pain (acute or chronic), or setting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the efficacy of psychological therapies in sickle cell disease is currently limited. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions in sickle cell disease.

Morita therapy for anxiety disorders in adults

BACKGROUND

Morita therapy, first proposed in 1919, is a systematic psychological therapy for anxiety disorders that is based on eastern philosophy. It is mainly used as an alternative therapy for anxiety disorders in Asian countries such as Japan and China. Varying foci of treatment outcomes have been reported. To date, there has been no systematic review to investigate the strength of evidence for Morita therapy in anxiety disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Morita therapy compared with pharmacological therapy, other psychological therapy, no intervention or wait list for anxiety disorders in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR, which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date)), Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI) and four main Chinese medical databases (Chongqing VIP Database, Wanfang Database, China Hospital Knowledge Database, China Biology Medicine disc) as described in the protocol of this review to December 2014. Furthermore, we extended our search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the Sagace, a web-based search engine for biomedical databases in Japan. We applied no date or language restrictions. We contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials comparing Morita therapy with any other treatment in the treatment of anxiety disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For homogenous dichotomous data, we calculated fixed-effect risk ratios (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated fixed-effect standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We found seven small Chinese studies (449 participants), six of which provided useable data for meta-analysis. No study compared Morita therapy with an inactive control. Unclear randomisation methods, lack of blinding and low quality reporting of outcomes were common in the included studies. We graded the overall risk of bias as high and the quality of the evidence as very low.Two social phobia studies (75 outpatients) directly compared Morita therapy with pharmacological therapy. In this comparison, the pooled RR of global state was 1.85 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.69) and the NNTB was 3 (95% CI 2 to 5), indicating a significant difference between groups favouring Morita therapy in the short term (up to 12 weeks' post-treatment). Data regarding drop-outs was insufficient and no description of adverse effects was provided. We graded the quality of the evidence for this comparison as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias in the studies and insufficient information in the results.Four studies (288 inpatients) investigated the effect of Morita therapy plus pharmacological therapy versus pharmacological therapy alone, three studies for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (228 participants) and one study for generalised anxiety disorder (60 participants). One of the OCD studies reported incomplete data of global state while the outcome of global state was missing in the other three studies. There was no significant difference between groups for drop-outs for any reason in two OCD studies in the short term (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 6.67; I(2) = 44%). Information pertaining to drop-outs for adverse effects was unclear. We rated the risk of bias of this comparison as high. We graded the quality of the evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base on Morita therapy for anxiety disorders was limited. All studies included in this review were conducted in China, and the results may not be applicable to Western countries. These included studies were small, provided insufficient information about drop-outs and adverse effects, and contained considerable risk of bias. Therefore, we graded the evidence as very low quality and were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of Morita therapy in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Well-designed future studies that employ adequate allocation concealment, recruit large sample sizes, report drop-outs and adverse effects, and report outcomes clearly and consistently are needed to establish the effectiveness of Morita therapy for anxiety disorders.

Psychological, social and welfare interventions for psychological health and well-being of torture survivors

BACKGROUND

Torture is widespread, with potentially broad and long-lasting impact across physical, psychological, social and other areas of life. Its complex and diverse effects interact with ethnicity, gender, and refugee experience. Health and welfare agencies offer varied rehabilitation services, from conventional mental health treatment to eclectic or needs-based interventions. This review is needed because relatively little outcome research has been done in this field, and no previous systematic review has been conducted. Resources are scarce, and the challenges of providing services can be considerable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess beneficial and adverse effects of psychological, social and welfare interventions for torture survivors, and to compare these effects with those reported by active and inactive controls.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through a search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Specialised Register (CCDANCTR), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and Published International Literature On Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) all years to 11 April 2013; searches of Cochrane resources, international trial registries and the main biomedical databases were updated on 20 June 2014. We also searched the Online Library of Dignity (Danish Institute against Torture), reference lists of reviews and included studies and the most frequently cited journals, up to April 2013 but not repeated for 2014. Investigators were contacted to provide updates or details as necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Full publications of RCTs or quasi-RCTs of psychological, social or welfare interventions for survivors of torture against any active or inactive comparison condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We included all major sources of grey literature in our search and used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration for collecting data, evaluating risk of bias and using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs were included in this review. All were of psychological interventions; none provided social or welfare interventions. The nine trials provided data for 507 adults; none involved children or adolescents. Eight of the nine studies described individual treatment, and one discussed group treatment. Six trials were conducted in Europe, and three in different African countries. Most people were refugees in their thirties and forties; most met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the outset. Four trials used narrative exposure therapy (NET), one cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and the other four used mixed methods for trauma symptoms, one of which included reconciliation methods. Five interventions were compared with active controls, such as psychoeducation; four used treatment as usual or waiting list/no treatment; we analysed all control conditions together. Duration of therapy varied from one hour to longer than 20 hours with a median of around 12 to 15 hours. All trials reported effects on distress and on PTSD, and two reported on quality of life. Five studies followed up participants for at least six months.No immediate benefits of psychological therapy were noted in comparison with controls in terms of our primary outcome of distress (usually depression), nor for PTSD symptoms, PTSD caseness, or quality of life. At six-month follow-up, three NET and one CBT study (86 participants) showed moderate effect sizes for intervention over control in reduction of distress (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to -0.19) and of PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.07). However, the quality of evidence was very low, and risk of bias resulted from researcher/therapist allegiance to treatment methods, effects of uncertain asylum status of some people and real-time non-standardised translation of assessment measures. No measures of adverse events were described, nor of participation, social functioning, quantity of social or family relationships, proxy measures by third parties or satisfaction with treatment. Too few studies were identified for review authors to attempt sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence suggests no differences between psychological therapies and controls in terms of immediate effects on post-traumatic symptoms, distress or quality of life; however, NET and CBT were found to confer moderate benefits in reducing distress and PTSD symptoms over the medium term (six months after treatment). Evidence was of very low quality, mainly because non-standardised assessment methods using interpreters were applied, and sample sizes were very small. Most eligible trials also revealed medium to high risk of bias. Further, attention to the cultural appropriateness of interventions or to their psychometric qualities was inadequate, and assessment measures used were unsuitable. As such, these findings should be interpreted with caution.No data were available on whether symptom reduction enabled improvements in quality of life, participation in community life, or in social and family relationships in the medium term. Details of adverse events and treatment satisfaction were not available immediately after treatment nor in the medium term. Future research should aim to address these gaps in the evidence and should include larger sample sizes when possible. Problems of torture survivors need to be defined far more broadly than by PTSD symptoms, and recognition given to the contextual influences of being a torture survivor, including as an asylum seeker or refugee, on psychological and social health.

Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults

BACKGROUND

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform disorders unspecified, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, pain disorder, and alternative somatoform diagnoses proposed in the literature) and MUPS in adults, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list controls, attention placebo, psychological placebo, enhanced or structured care, and other psychological or physical therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to November 2013. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. We ran an additional search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a cited reference search on the Web of Science. We also searched grey literature, conference proceedings, international trial registers, and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster randomised controlled trials which involved adults primarily diagnosed with a somatoform disorder or an alternative diagnostic concept of MUPS, who were assigned to a non-pharmacological intervention compared with usual care, waiting list controls, attention or psychological placebo, enhanced care, or another psychological or physical therapy intervention, alone or in combination.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors, working in pairs, conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with another review author. We pooled data from studies addressing the same comparison using standardised mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were severity of somatic symptoms and acceptability of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies with 2658 randomised participants. All studies assessed the effectiveness of some form of psychological therapy. We found no studies that included physical therapy.Fourteen studies evaluated forms of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); the remainder evaluated behaviour therapies, third-wave CBT (mindfulness), psychodynamic therapies, and integrative therapy. Fifteen included studies compared the studied psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list. Five studies compared the intervention to enhanced or structured care. Only one study compared cognitive behavioural therapy with behaviour therapy.Across the 21 studies, the mean number of sessions ranged from one to 13, over a period of one day to nine months. Duration of follow-up varied between two weeks and 24 months. Participants were recruited from various healthcare settings and the open population. Duration of symptoms, reported by nine studies, was at least several years, suggesting most participants had chronic symptoms at baseline.Due to the nature of the intervention, lack of blinding of participants, therapists, and outcome assessors resulted in a high risk of bias on these items for most studies. Eleven studies (52% of studies) reported a loss to follow-up of more than 20%. For other items, most studies were at low risk of bias. Adverse events were seldom reported.For all studies comparing some form of psychological therapy with usual care or a waiting list that could be included in the meta-analysis, the psychological therapy resulted in less severe symptoms at end of treatment (SMD -0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.16; 10 studies, 1081 analysed participants). This effect was considered small to medium; heterogeneity was moderate and overall quality of the evidence was low. Compared with usual care, psychological therapies resulted in a 7% higher proportion of drop-outs during treatment (RR acceptability 0.93; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 14 studies, 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Removing one outlier study reduced the difference to 5%. Results for the subgroup of studies comparing CBT with usual care were similar to those in the whole group.Five studies (624 analysed participants) assessed symptom severity comparing some psychological therapy with enhanced care, and found no clear evidence of a difference at end of treatment (pooled SMD -0.19; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; considerable heterogeneity; low-quality evidence). Five studies (679 participants) showed that psychological therapies were somewhat less acceptable in terms of drop-outs than enhanced care (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When all psychological therapies included this review were combined they were superior to usual care or waiting list in terms of reduction of symptom severity, but effect sizes were small. As a single treatment, only CBT has been adequately studied to allow tentative conclusions for practice to be drawn. Compared with usual care or waiting list conditions, CBT reduced somatic symptoms, with a small effect and substantial differences in effects between CBT studies. The effects were durable within and after one year of follow-up. Compared with enhanced or structured care, psychological therapies generally were not more effective for most of the outcomes. Compared with enhanced care, CBT was not more effective. The overall quality of evidence contributing to this review was rated low to moderate.The intervention groups reported no major harms. However, as most studies did not describe adverse events as an explicit outcome measure, this result has to be interpreted with caution.An important issue was that all studies in this review included participants who were willing to receive psychological treatment. In daily practice, there is also a substantial proportion of participants not willing to accept psychological treatments for somatoform disorders or MUPS. It is unclear how large this group is and how this influences the relevance of CBT in clinical practice.The number of studies investigating various treatment modalities (other than CBT) needs to be increased; this is especially relevant for studies concerning physical therapies. Future studies should include participants from a variety of age groups; they should also make efforts to blind outcome assessors and to conduct follow-up assessments until at least one year after the end of treatment.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 1, 2003, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. Chronic pain affects many children, who report severe pain, disability, and distressed mood. Psychological therapies are emerging as effective interventions to treat children with chronic or recurrent pain. This update focuses specifically on psychological therapies delivered face-to-face, adds new randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and additional data from previously included trials.

OBJECTIVES

There were three objectives to this review. First, to determine the effectiveness on clinical outcomes of pain severity, disability, depression, and anxiety of psychological therapy delivered face-to-face for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents compared with active treatment, waiting-list, or standard medical care. Second, to evaluate the impact of psychological therapies on depression and anxiety, which were previously combined as 'mood'. Third, we assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and the quality of outcomes using the GRADE criteria.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were undertaken of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. We searched for further RCTs in the references of all identified studies, meta-analyses, and reviews. Trial registry databases were also searched. The date of most recent search was January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment, standard medical care, or waiting-list control for children or adolescents with episodic, recurrent or persistent pain were eligible for inclusion. Only trials conducted in person (face-to-face) were considered. Studies that delivered treatment remotely were excluded from this update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All included studies were analysed and the quality of outcomes were assessed. All treatments were combined into one class, psychological treatments. Pain conditions were split into headache and non-headache. Both conditions were assessed on four outcomes: pain, disability, depression, and anxiety. Data were extracted at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data available following end of treatment) and at follow-up (between three and 12 months post-treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven papers were identified in the updated search. Of these papers, five presented new trials and two presented follow-up data for previously included trials. Five studies that were previously included in this review were excluded as therapy was delivered remotely. The review thus included a total of 37 studies. The total number of participants completing treatments was 2111. Twenty studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); nine for abdominal pain; two for mixed pain conditions including headache pain, two for fibromyalgia, two for recurrent abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome, and two for pain associated with sickle cell disease.Analyses revealed psychological therapies to be beneficial for children with chronic pain on seven outcomes. For headache pain, psychological therapies reduced pain post-treatment and at follow-up respectively (risk ratio (RR) 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97 to 3.09, z = 7.87, p < 0.01, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 2.94; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.03 to 8.07, z = 2.02, p < 0.05, NNTB = 3.67). Psychological therapies also had a small beneficial effect at reducing disability in headache conditions post-treatment and at follow-up respectively (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.24, z = 3.90, p < 0.01; SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.13, z = 2.72, p < 0.01). No beneficial effect was found on depression post-treatment (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.14, z = 1.11, p > 0.05). At follow-up, only one study was eligible, therefore no analysis was possible and no conclusions can be drawn. Analyses revealed a small beneficial effect for anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.04, z = 2.25, p < 0.05). However, this was not maintained at follow-up (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.45; z = 0.75, p > 0.05).Analyses revealed two beneficial effects of psychological treatment for children with non-headache pain. Pain was found to improve post-treatment (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.27, z = 3.74, p < 0.01), but not at follow-up (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, z = 0.73, p > 0.05). Psychological therapies also had a beneficial effect for disability post-treatment (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.19, z = 3.40, p < 0.01), but this was not maintained at follow-up (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.02, z = 1.87, p > 0.05). No effect was found for depression or anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.17, z = 0.54, p > 0.05; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.07, z = 1.33, p > 0.05) or at follow-up (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28, z = 0.53, p > 0.05; SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.33, z = 0.32, p > 0.05).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological treatments delivered face-to-face are effective in reducing pain intensity and disability for children and adolescents (<18 years) with headache, and therapeutic gains appear to be maintained, although this should be treated with caution for the disability outcome as only two studies could be included in the follow-up analysis. Psychological therapies are also beneficial at reducing anxiety post-treatment for headache. For non-headache conditions, psychological treatments were found to be beneficial for pain and disability post-treatment but these effects were not maintained at follow-up. There is limited evidence available to estimate the effects of psychological therapies on depression and anxiety for children and adolescents with headache and non-headache pain. The conclusions of this update replicate and add to those of the previous review which found that psychological therapies were effective in reducing pain intensity for children with headache and non-headache pain conditions, and these effects were maintained at follow-up for children with headache conditions.

Psychological and behavioural treatments for adults with non-epileptic attack disorder

BACKGROUND

Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, also known as non-epileptic attack disorder (NEAD), have the outward appearance of epilepsy in the absence of physiological or electroencephalographic correlates. Non-epileptic seizures can occur in isolation or in combination with epileptic seizures. The development and maintenance of non-epileptic seizures has been well documented and there is a growing literature on the treatment of non-epileptic seizures which includes non-psychological (including anti-anxiety and antidepressant pharmacological treatment) and psychological therapies (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy and paradoxical therapy). Various treatment methodologies have been tried with variable success. The purpose of this Cochrane review was to establish the evidence base for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures with behavioural and psychological therapies only.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether behavioural or psychological treatments for non-epileptic seizures or NEAD result in a reduction in the frequency of seizures or improvement in quality of life, or both, and whether any treatment is significantly more effective than others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (4 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to 4 February 2013), PsycINFO (4 February 2013) and SCOPUS (4 February 2013). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before and after controlled and non-controlled studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were required to assess one or more types of behavioural or psychological interventions, or both, for the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Studies of childhood non-epileptic seizures were excluded from our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JM, JP) independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included reduction in seizure frequency and improvements in quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies, with a total of 343 participants, met our inclusion criteria (four RCTs and eight before and after non-controlled studies). Of the four RCTs, one examined patients with non-epileptic seizures and three had a mixed diagnosis (pseudoseizures, conversion disorder and somatisation disorder). Most of the non-randomised studies used non-epileptic seizure patients exclusively. Overall, five studies examined the effectiveness of psychotherapy, three examined CBT, two investigated hypnosis, one assessed paradoxical intention and one had a mixed intervention design. We classified two included studies as low risk of bias, one as unclear and nine as high risk of bias. Meta-analysis could not be undertaken due to the heterogeneity of design and interventions. Most included studies reported improved outcomes for the intervention under investigation. One RCT investigating the effectiveness of CBT in this patient group found a significant reduction in seizure frequency compared to controls (P < 0.001).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little reliable evidence to support the use of any treatment, including CBT, in the treatment of non-epileptic seizures. Further randomised controlled trials of CBT and other interventions are needed.

Psychological treatments for depression and anxiety in dementia and mild cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND

Experiencing anxiety and depression is very common in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Psychological interventions have been suggested as a potential treatment for these populations. Current research suggests that people with dementia and MCI have limited opportunities for psychological treatments aimed at improving their well-being. A systematic review of the evidence on their effectiveness is likely to be useful in terms of improving outcomes for patients and for future recommendations for practice.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing anxiety and depression in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register and additional sources for both published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a psychological intervention with usual care or a placebo intervention (social contact control) in people with dementia or MCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors worked independently to select trials, extract data and assess studies for risk of bias, using a data extraction form. We contacted authors when further information was not available from the published articles.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 439 participants with dementia were included in the review, but no studies of participants with MCI were identified. The studies included people with dementia living in the community or in nursing home care and were carried out in several countries. Only one of the studies was classified as low risk of bias. Five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias due to uncertainties around randomisation, blinding and selective reporting of results. The studies used the different psychological approaches of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy and counselling. Two studies were of multimodal interventions including a specific psychological therapy. The comparison groups received either usual care, attention-control educational programs, diagnostic feedback or services slightly above usual care.Meta-analysis showed a positive effect of psychological treatments on depression (6 trials, 439 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to -0.03, moderate quality evidence) and on clinician-rated anxiety (2 trials, 65 participants, mean difference (MD) -4.57; 95% CI -7.81 to -1.32, low quality evidence), but not on self-rated anxiety (2 trials, SMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.54) or carer-rated anxiety (1 trial, MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.96 to 0.16). Results were compatible with both benefit and harm on the secondary outcomes of patient quality of life, activities of daily living (ADLs), neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognition, or on carers' self-rated depressive symptoms, but most of the studies did not measure these outcomes. There were no reports of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that psychological interventions added to usual care can reduce symptoms of depression and clinician-rated anxiety for people with dementia. We conclude that psychological interventions have the potential to improve patient well-being. Further high quality studies are needed to investigate which treatments are most effective and to evaluate the effect of psychological interventions in people with MCI.

Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a distressing condition, which is often treated with psychological therapies. Earlier versions of this review, and other meta-analyses, have found these to be effective, with trauma-focused treatments being more effective than non-trauma-focused treatments. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005 and updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychological therapies for the treatment of adults with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) all years to 12th April 2013. This register contains relevant randomised controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). In addition, we handsearched the Journal of Traumatic Stress, contacted experts in the field, searched bibliographies of included studies, and performed citation searches of identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of individual trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TFCBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR), non-trauma-focused CBT (non-TFCBT), other therapies (supportive therapy, non-directive counselling, psychodynamic therapy and present-centred therapy), group TFCBT, or group non-TFCBT, compared to one another or to a waitlist or usual care group for the treatment of chronic PTSD. The primary outcome measure was the severity of clinician-rated traumatic-stress symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and entered them into Review Manager 5 software. We contacted authors to obtain missing data. Two review authors independently performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We pooled the data where appropriate, and analysed for summary effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 70 studies involving a total of 4761 participants in the review. The first primary outcome for this review was reduction in the severity of PTSD symptoms, using a standardised measure rated by a clinician. For this outcome, individual TFCBT and EMDR were more effective than waitlist/usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.62; 95% CI -2.03 to -1.21; 28 studies; n = 1256 and SMD -1.17; 95% CI -2.04 to -0.30; 6 studies; n = 183 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between individual TFCBT, EMDR and Stress Management (SM) immediately post-treatment although there was some evidence that individual TFCBT and EMDR were superior to non-TFCBT at follow-up, and that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT were more effective than other therapies. Non-TFCBT was more effective than waitlist/usual care and other therapies. Other therapies were superior to waitlist/usual care control as was group TFCBT. There was some evidence of greater drop-out (the second primary outcome for this review) in active treatment groups. Many of the studies were rated as being at 'high' or 'unclear' risk of bias in multiple domains, and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity; in addition, we assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison as very low. As such, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for each of the comparisons made in this review was assessed as very low quality. This evidence showed that individual TFCBT and EMDR did better than waitlist/usual care in reducing clinician-assessed PTSD symptoms. There was evidence that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT are equally effective immediately post-treatment in the treatment of PTSD. There was some evidence that TFCBT and EMDR are superior to non-TFCBT between one to four months following treatment, and also that individual TFCBT, EMDR and non-TFCBT are more effective than other therapies. There was evidence of greater drop-out in active treatment groups. Although a substantial number of studies were included in the review, the conclusions are compromised by methodological issues evident in some. Sample sizes were small, and it is apparent that many of the studies were underpowered. There were limited follow-up data, which compromises conclusions regarding the long-term effects of psychological treatment.

Psychological therapies for generalised anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND

Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is a highly prevalent condition, characterised by excessive worry or anxiety about everyday events and problems. The effectiveness and effectiveness of psychological therapies as a group has not yet been evaluated in the treatment of GAD.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and acceptability of psychological therapies, categorised as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy and supportive therapy, compared with treatment as usual/waiting list (TAU/WL) and compared with one another, for patients with GAD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety & Neurosis Group (CCDAN) Controlled Trials Register and conducted supplementary searches of MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, LILACS and controlledtrials.com in February 2006. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles, and contacted trial authors and experts in the field for information on ongoing/completed trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials conducted in non-inpatient settings, involving adults aged 18-75 years with a primary diagnosis of GAD, assigned to a psychological therapy condition compared with TAU/WL or another psychological therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on patients, interventions and outcomes were extracted by two review authors independently, and the methodological quality of each study was assessed. The primary outcome was anxiety reduction, based on a dichotomous measure of clinical response, using relative risk (RR), and on a continuous measure of symptom reduction, using the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five studies (1305 participants) were included in the review, of which 22 studies (1060 participants) contributed data to meta-analyses. Based on thirteen studies, psychological therapies, all using a CBT approach, were more effective than TAU/WL in achieving clinical response at post-treatment (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.73), and also in reducing anxiety, worry and depression symptoms. No studies conducted longer-term assessments of CBT against TAU/WL. Six studies compared CBT against supportive therapy (non-directive therapy and attention-placebo conditions). No significant difference in clinical response was indicated between CBT and supportive therapy at post-treatment (RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.70 to 1.06), however significant heterogeneity was indicated, which was partly explained by the number of therapy sessions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological therapy based on CBT principles is effective in reducing anxiety symptoms for short-term treatment of GAD. The body of evidence comparing CBT with other psychological therapies is small and heterogeneous, which precludes drawing conclusions about which psychological therapy is more effective. Further studies examining non-CBT models are required to inform health care policy on the most appropriate forms of psychological therapy in treating GAD.

Combined psychotherapy plus antidepressants for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia

BACKGROUND

Panic disorder can be treated with pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy or in combination, but the relative merits of combined therapy have not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To review evidence concerning short- and long-term advantages and disadvantages of combined psychotherapy plus antidepressant treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, in comparison with either therapy alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Registers (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) were searched on 11/10/2005, together with a complementary search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE, using the keywords antidepressant and panic. A reference search, SciSearch and personal contact with experts were carried out.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent review authors identified randomised controlled trials comparing the combined therapy against either of the monotherapies among adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data using predefined data formats, including study quality indicators. The primary outcome was relative risk (RR) of "response" i.e. substantial overall improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators. Secondary outcomes included standardised weighted mean differences in global severity, panic attack frequency, phobic avoidance, general anxiety, depression and social functioning and relative risks of overall dropouts and dropouts due to side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 23 randomised comparisons (representing 21 trials, 1709 patients), 21 of which involved behaviour or cognitive-behaviour therapies. In the acute phase treatment, the combined therapy was superior to antidepressant pharmacotherapy (RR 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.52) or psychotherapy (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31). The combined therapy produced more dropouts due to side effects than psychotherapy (number needed to harm (NNH) around 26). After the acute phase treatment, as long as the drug was continued, the superiority of the combination over either monotherapy appeared to persist. After termination of the acute phase and continuation treatment, the combined therapy was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.11) and was as effective as psychotherapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either combined therapy or psychotherapy alone may be chosen as first line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, depending on patient preference.

Paraprofessionals for anxiety and depressive disorders

BACKGROUND

The established mental health care system does not have the resources to meet the extensive need for care of those with anxiety and depressive disorders. Paraprofessionals partially replacing professionals may be cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of any kind of psychological treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders performed by paraprofessionals compared with professionals, waiting list or placebo condition. To examine whether the results apply to clinically significant anxiety and depressive disorders of referred patients with a psychiatric history and/or whose illness has lasted two years or more.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CCDANCTR-Studies using the following terms: (paraprofessional* or para-professional* or non-professional* or non-professional* or peer or volunt*); EMBASE (ExerptaMedica), MEDLINE and PsycINFO, all years published, key words: para-/paraprofessional, non-/nonprofessional, rand*, respectively psy*; citation lists of articles reviewing the subject and included studies; correspondence with authors of controlled studies and review reports on the subject.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that used symptom measures, and compared the effects of psychological treatments given by paraprofessionals (mental health care workers, paid or voluntary, unqualified with respect to the psychological treatment) with psychological treatments given by professionals, and with waiting list or placebo condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard mean difference was used to pool continuous data from each trial, and odds ratios were used to pool dichotomous data, using a random effects model. The generic inverse variance method was used for combining continuous and dichotomous data. The effect of low quality studies and the use of self-rated versus observer-rated measures were tested, and subgroup analyses were performed for differences between depression and anxiety diagnosis, paraprofessionals with/without professional background, group/individual intervention, length of follow-up and gender (post-hoc subgroup analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies, all using self-report measures, reported five comparisons of paraprofessionals versus professionals (n=106) and five comparisons of paraprofessionals versus control condition (n=220). No differences were found between paraprofessionals and professionals (SMD=0.09, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.40, p=0.58; no significant heterogeneity). Studies comparing paraprofessionals versus control reported mixed continuous and dichotomous data showed a significant pooled effect in favour of paraprofessionals (OR=0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88, p=0.03), but heterogeneity was indicated (I(2)=60.9%, Chi(2)= 10.24, df=4, p=0.04). After correction for heterogeneity and removing one study of low quality, the pooling of data from three studies (n=128; mixed gender and women only) indicated no significant difference in effect between paraprofessionals and professionals (SMD=0.13, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.64; p=0.63) and a strongly significant pooled effect for three studies (n=188; women only) favouring paraprofessionals over the control condition (OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.48, p<0.00001), and homogeneity indicated between studies (I(2)=0%, Chi(2)=0.47, df=2, p=0.79).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The few studies included in the review did not allow conclusions about the effect of paraprofessionals compared to professionals. Pooling data from three studies, involving women only, indicated a significant effect for paraprofessionals (all volunteers) compared to no treatment. The evidence to date may justify the development and evaluation of programs incorporating paraprofessionals in treatment programs for anxiety and depressive disorders.