Dataset Information

The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Poor mental health places a burden on individuals and populations. Resilient persons are able to adapt to life's challenges and maintain high quality of life and function. Finding effective strategies to bolster resilience in individuals and populations is of interest to many stakeholders.

Objectives

To synthesize the evidence for resiliency training programs in improving mental health and capacity in 1) diverse adult populations and 2) persons with chronic diseases.

Data sources

Electronic databases, clinical trial registries, and bibliographies. We also contacted study authors and field experts.

Study selection

Randomized trials assessing the efficacy of any program intended to enhance resilience in adults and published after 1990. No restrictions were made based on outcome measured or comparator used.

Data extraction and synthesis

Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to extract study characteristics and data. These were confirmed with authors. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis on available data and tested for interaction in planned subgroups.

Main outcomes

The standardized mean difference (SMD) effect of resiliency training programs on 1) resilience/hardiness, 2) quality of life/well-being, 3) self-efficacy/activation, 4) depression, 5) stress, and 6) anxiety.

Results

We found 25 small trials at moderate to high risk of bias. Interventions varied in format and theoretical approach. Random effects meta-analysis showed a moderate effect of generalized stress-directed programs on enhancing resilience [pooled SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.57) p = .0002; I2 = 41%] within 3 months of follow up. Improvement in other outcomes was favorable to the interventions and reached statistical significance after removing two studies at high risk of bias. Trauma-induced stress-directed programs significantly improved stress [-0.53 (-1.04, -0.03) p = .03; I2 = 73%] and depression [-0.51 (-0.92, -0.10) p = .04; I2 = 61%].

Conclusions

We found evidence warranting low confidence that resiliency training programs have a small to moderate effect at improving resilience and other mental health outcomes. Further study is needed to better define the resilience construct and to design interventions specific to it.

Registration number

PROSPERO #CRD42014007185.

SUBMITTER: Leppin AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4210242 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Leppin Aaron L AL Bora Pavithra R PR Tilburt Jon C JC Gionfriddo Michael R MR Zeballos-Palacios Claudia C Dulohery Megan M MM Sood Amit A Erwin Patricia J PJ Brito Juan Pablo JP Boehmer Kasey R KR Montori Victor M VM

PloS one 20141027 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Poor mental health places a burden on individuals and populations. Resilient persons are able to adapt to life's challenges and maintain high quality of life and function. Finding effective strategies to bolster resilience in individuals and populations is of interest to many stakeholders.<h4>Objectives</h4>To synthesize the evidence for resiliency training programs in improving mental health and capacity in 1) diverse adult populations and 2) persons with chronic diseases.<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 25347713

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSimulation is an increasingly used novel method for the education of medical professionals. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy of high-fidelity (HF) simulation compared with low-fidelity (LF) simulation or no simulation in advanced life support (ALS) training.MethodsA comprehensive search of the PubMed, Chinese Biomedicine Database, Embase, CENTRAL, ISI, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of HF simulation in ALS training. Quality assessment was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.0.1. The primary outcome was the improvement of knowledge and skill performance. The secondary outcomes included the participants' confidence and satisfaction at the course conclusion, skill performance at one year, skill performance in actual resuscitation, and patient outcomes. Data were synthesized using the RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsAltogether, 25 RCTs with a total of 1,987 trainees were included in the meta-analysis. In the intervention group, 998 participants used HF manikins, whereas 989 participants received LF simulation-based or traditional training (classical training without simulation). Pooled data from the RCTs demonstrated a benefit in improvement of knowledge [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.59, P = 0.0003, I2 = 70%] and skill performance (SMD = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.21-1.04, P = 0.003, I2 = 92%) for HF simulation when compared with LF simulation and traditional training. The subgroup analysis revealed a greater benefit in knowledge with HF simulation compared with traditional training at the course conclusion (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.20-0.83, P = 0.003, I2 = 61%). Studies measuring knowledge at three months, skill performance at one year, teamwork behaviors, participants' satisfaction and confidence demonstrated no significant benefit for HF simulation.ConclusionsLearners using HF simulation more significantly benefited from the ALS training in terms of knowledge and skill performance at the course conclusion. However, further research is necessary to enhance long-term retention of knowledge and skill in actual resuscitation and patient's outcomes.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Project description:Background: There is increased interest in proprioceptive training for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, little consensus supports the effectiveness of this intervention. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of proprioceptive training on symptoms, function, and proprioception in people with KOA. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to April 16, 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by calculating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used for the analyses. Results: A total of 24 RCTs involving 1,275 participants were included in our analysis. This study indicated that compared to no intervention, proprioceptive training significantly improved pain, stiffness, physical function, joint position sense (JPS), muscle strength, mobility, and knee ROM (P < 0.05) in people with KOA. When compared to other non-proprioceptive training, proprioceptive training provided better results in terms of JPS (SMD = -1.28, 95%CI: [-1.64, -0.92], I 2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) and mobility (timed walk over spongy surface) (SMD = -0.76, 95%CI: [-1.33, -0.18], I 2 = 64%, P = 0.01), and other results are similar. When proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training compared to other non-proprioceptive training, the two groups showed similar outcomes, but there was a greater improvement for JPS (SMD = -1.54, 95%CI: [-2.74, -0.34], I 2 = 79%, P = 0.01), physical function (SMD = -0.34, 95%CI: [-0.56, -0.12], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.003), and knee ROM (P < 0.05) in the proprioceptive training plus other non-proprioceptive training group. When proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy compared against conventional physiotherapy, the two groups demonstrated similar outcomes, but there was a significant improvement for JPS (SMD = -0.95, 95%CI: [-1.73, -0.18], I 2 = 78%, P = 0.02) in the proprioceptive training plus conventional physiotherapy group. Conclusions: Proprioceptive training is safe and effective in treating KOA. There is some evidence that proprioceptive training combined with general non-proprioceptive training or conventional physiotherapy appears to be more effective and should be considered as part of the rehabilitation program. However, given that the majority of current studies investigated the short-term effect of these proprioceptive training programs, more large-scale and well-designed studies with long-term follow up are needed to determine the long-term effects of these proprioceptive training regimes in KOA. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021240587.

Dataset Information

The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Importance

Objectives

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes

Results

Conclusions

Registration number

Publications

The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets