Psychosocial interventions for adults with visible differences: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Unlabelled
Background. Some individuals with visible differences have been found to experience psychosocial adjustment problems that can lead to social anxiety and isolation. Various models of psychosocial intervention have been used to reduce social anxiety and appearance related distress in this population. The objective of this review was to update a previous systematic review assessing the efficacy of psychosocial intervention programs for adults with visible differences. The original review (Bessell & Moss, 2007) identified 12 papers for inclusion. Methods. A search protocol identified studies from 13 electronic journal databases.Methods
Studies were selected in accordance with pre-set inclusion criteria and relevant data were extracted. Results. This update identified an additional four papers that met the inclusion criteria. Two papers provided very limited evidence for the efficacy of a combined cognitive-behavioural and social skills training approach. None of the papers provided sufficient evidence for the optimal duration, intensity or setting of psychosocial interventions for this population. Discussion. The review concluded that a greater number of Randomised Controlled Trials and experimental studies were required to increase the methodological validity of intervention studies.
SUBMITTER: Norman A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4389275 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Psychosocial interventions for adults with visible differences: a systematic review.
Norman Alyson A Moss Timothy P TP
PeerJ 20150402
<h4>Unlabelled</h4>Background. Some individuals with visible differences have been found to experience psychosocial adjustment problems that can lead to social anxiety and isolation. Various models of psychosocial intervention have been used to reduce social anxiety and appearance related distress in this population. The objective of this review was to update a previous systematic review assessing the efficacy of psychosocial intervention programs for adults with visible differences. The origina ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:While the need for psychosocial interventions in the early formative period of chronic disease diagnosis is widely acknowledged, little is known about the currently available interventions and what they entail. This review sought to collate existing interventions to synthesize their active ingredients. A systematic search on five electronic databases yielded 2910 records, 12 of which were eligible for this review. Evidence synthesis revealed three broad categories of interventions which used at least two out of eight active techniques. Future studies should adhere to known frameworks for intervention development, and focus on developing core outcome measures to enhance evidence synthesis.
| S-EPMC9092922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.
| S-EPMC7081137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveVisible differences in appearance are associated with poor social and psychological outcomes. Effectiveness of non-surgical cosmetic and other camouflage interventions is poorly understood. The objective was to evaluate effects of cosmetic and other camouflage interventions on appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes and adverse effects for adults with visible appearance differences.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) CINAHL and Cochrane Central databases searched from inception to 24 October 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts and full texts.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials in any language on non-surgical cosmetic or other camouflage interventions that reported appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes or adverse effects for adults with visible appearance differences.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data, assessed intervention reporting using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes included appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety) and adverse effects.ResultsOne head-to-head trial and five trials with waiting list or routine care comparators were included. All had unclear or high risk of bias in at least five of seven domains. Effect sizes could not be determined for most outcomes due to poor reporting. Between-group statistically significant differences were not reported for any appearance-related outcomes and for only 5 of 25 (20%) other psychological outcomes. Given heterogeneity of populations and interventions, poor reporting and high risk of bias, quantitative synthesis was not possible.ConclusionsConclusions about effectiveness of non-surgical cosmetic or other camouflage interventions could not be drawn. Well-designed and conducted trials are needed. Without such evidence, clinicians or other qualified individuals should engage with patients interested in cosmetic interventions in shared decision making, outlining potential benefits and harms, and the lack of evidence to inform decisions.Prospero registration numberCRD42018103421.
| S-EPMC8098928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe mental and physical health of individuals with a psychotic illness are typically poor. Access to psychosocial interventions is important but currently limited. Telephone-delivered interventions may assist. In the current systematic review, we aim to summarise and critically analyse evidence for telephone-delivered psychosocial interventions targeting key health priorities in adults with a psychotic disorder, including (i) relapse, (ii) adherence to psychiatric medication and/or (iii) modifiable cardiovascular disease risk behaviours.MethodsTen peer-reviewed and four grey literature databases were searched for English-language studies examining psychosocial telephone-delivered interventions targeting relapse, medication adherence and/or health behaviours in adults with a psychotic disorder. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses.ResultsTwenty trials [13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)] were included, involving 2473 participants (relapse prevention = 867; medication adherence = 1273; and health behaviour = 333). Five of eight RCTs targeting relapse prevention and one of three targeting medication adherence reported at least 50% of outcomes in favour of the telephone-delivered intervention. The two health-behaviour RCTs found comparable levels of improvement across treatment conditions.ConclusionsAlthough most interventions combined telephone and face-to-face delivery, there was evidence to support the benefit of entirely telephone-delivered interventions. Telephone interventions represent a potentially feasible and effective option for improving key health priorities among people with psychotic disorders. Further methodologically rigorous evaluations are warranted.
| S-EPMC6236444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMore than 135 million people worldwide live with acquired brain injury (ABI) and its many psychosocial sequelae. This growing global burden necessitates scalable rehabilitation services. Despite demonstrated potential to increase the accessibility and scalability of psychosocial supports, digital health interventions are challenging to implement and sustain. The Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework can offer developers and researchers a comprehensive overview of considerations to implement, scale, and sustain digital health interventions.ObjectiveThis systematic review identified published, peer-reviewed primary evidence of implementation outcomes, strategies, and factors for web-based psychosocial interventions targeting either adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers; evaluated and summarized this evidence; synthesized qualitative and quantitative implementation data according to the NASSS framework; and provided recommendations for future implementation. Results were compared with 3 hypotheses which state that complexity (dynamic, unpredictable, and poorly characterized factors) in most or all NASSS domains increases likelihood of implementation failure; success is achievable, but difficult with many complicated domains (containing multiple interacting factors); and simplicity (straightforward, predictable, and few factors) in most or all domains increases the likelihood of success.MethodsFrom a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, speechBITE, and neuroBITE, we reviewed primary implementation evidence from January 2008 to June 2020. For web-based psychosocial interventions delivered via standard desktop computer, mobile phone, tablet, television, and virtual reality devices to adults with ABI or their formal or informal caregivers, we extracted intervention characteristics, stakeholder involvement, implementation scope and outcomes, study design and quality, and implementation data. Implementation data were both narratively synthesized and descriptively quantified across all 7 domains (condition, technology, value proposition, adopters, organization, wider system, and their interaction over time) and all subdomains of the NASSS framework. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsWe identified 60 peer-reviewed studies from 12 countries, including 5723 adults with ABI, 1920 carers, and 50 health care staff. The findings aligned with all 3 hypotheses.ConclusionsAlthough studies were of low methodological quality and insufficient number to statistically test relationships, the results appeared consistent with recommendations to reduce complexity as much as possible to facilitate implementation. Although studies excluded individuals with a range of comorbidities and sociocultural challenges, such simplification of NASSS domain 1 may have been necessary to advance intervention value propositions (domain 3). However, to create equitable digital health solutions that can be successfully implemented in real-world settings, it is recommended that developers involve people with ABI, their close others, and health care staff in addressing complexities in domains 2 to 7 from the earliest intervention design stages.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020186387; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186387.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1177/20552076211035988.
| S-EPMC9328122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost of patients with dementia are cared for by family members. Caring for people with dementia is challenging; approximately 30-55% of caregivers suffered from anxiety or depressive symptoms. A range of studies have shown that psychosocial interventions are effective and can improve caregivers' quality of life, reduce their care burden, and ease their anxiety or depressive symptoms. However, information on the acceptability of these interventions, despite being crucial, is under-reported.MethodsSystematic searches of databases were conducted for literature published on EMBASE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PsycARTICLES until August 2017 and the searches were updated on June 2018. The selection criteria included primary studies with data about the acceptability of psychosocial interventions for informal caregivers and publications written in English. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted study characteristics and data, assessed the methodological quality of the included studies by using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Research Checklist, and conducted a narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data.ResultsA total of 10,610 abstracts were identified through systematic searches. Based on screening titles and abstracts, 207 papers were identified that met the criteria for full paper review, with 42 papers from 13 different countries meeting the inclusion criteria. We found high- and moderate-quality evidence showing psychosocial interventions were acceptable, with important benefits for caregivers. Facilitators of acceptability included caregivers' need for intervention, appropriate content and organization of the intervention, and knowledge and professionalism of the staff. Barriers to acceptability included participants' poor health status and low education levels, caregiving burden, change of intervention implementers, and poor system performance of interventions.ConclusionThere is preliminary evidence to support the acceptability of psychosocial interventions for dementia caregivers. However, the available supporting evidence is limited, and there is currently no adequate information from these studies indicating that the acceptability has received enough attention from researchers. More well-designed studies assessing psychosocial interventions are needed to give specific statements about acceptability, and the measure of acceptability with psychosocial interventions should be more comprehensive.
| S-EPMC6332684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meaning and purpose in life are associated with the mental and physical health of patients with cancer and survivors and also constitute highly valued outcomes in themselves. Because meaning and purpose are often threatened by a cancer diagnosis and treatment, interventions have been developed to promote meaning and purpose. The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning/purpose in adults with cancer and tested potential moderators of intervention effects. Six literature databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs of psychosocial interventions in which meaning or purpose was an outcome. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, rater pairs extracted and evaluated data for quality. Findings were synthesized across studies with standard meta-analytic methods, including meta-regression with robust variance estimation and risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis. Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, and they encompassed 82 treatment effects among 2305 patients/survivors. Psychosocial interventions were associated with significant improvements in meaning/purpose (g = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.52; P < .0001). Interventions designed to enhance meaning/purpose (g = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.60) demonstrated significantly higher effect sizes than those targeting other primary outcomes (g = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; P = .009). Few other intervention, clinical, or demographic characteristics tested were significant moderators. In conclusion, the results suggest that psychosocial interventions are associated with small to medium effects in enhancing meaning/purpose among patients with cancer, and the benefits are comparable to those of interventions designed to reduce depression, pain, and fatigue in patients with cancer. Methodological concerns include small samples and ambiguity regarding allocation concealment. Future research should focus on explicitly meaning-centered interventions and identify optimal treatment or survivorship phases for implementation.
| S-EPMC6602826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSpiritual well-being (SpWb) is an important dimension of health-related quality of life for many cancer patients. Accordingly, an increasing number of psychosocial intervention studies have included SpWb as a study endpoint, and may improve SpWb even if not designed explicitly to do so. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions on SpWb in adults with cancer and tested potential moderators of intervention effects.MethodsSix literature databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs of psychosocial interventions in which SpWb was an outcome. Doctoral-level rater pairs extracted data using Covidence following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Standard meta-analytic techniques were applied, including meta-regression with robust variance estimation and risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis.ResultsForty-one RCTs were identified, encompassing 88 treatment effects among 3883 survivors. Interventions were associated with significant improvements in SpWb (g = 0.22, 95% CI [0.14, 0.29], p < 0.0001). Studies assessing the FACIT-Sp demonstrated larger effect sizes than did those using other measures of SpWb (g = 0.25, 95% CI [0.17, 0.34], vs. g = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23], p = 0.03]. No other intervention, clinical, or demographic characteristics significantly moderated effect size.ConclusionsPsychosocial interventions are associated with small-to-medium-sized effects on SpWb among cancer survivors. Future research should focus on conceptually coherent interventions explicitly targeting SpWb and evaluate interventions in samples that are diverse with respect to race and ethnicity, sex and cancer type.
| S-EPMC8485897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe WHO Guidelines for the inpatient treatment of severely malnourished children include a recommendation to provide sensory stimulation or play therapy for children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM). This systematic review was performed to synthesize evidence around this recommendation. Specifically, the objective was to answer the question: "In children with severe acute malnutrition, does psychosocial stimulation improve child developmental, nutritional, or other outcomes?"MethodsA review protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016036403). MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched with terms related to SAM and psychosocial stimulation. Studies were selected if they applied a stimulation intervention in children with SAM and child developmental and nutritional outcomes were assessed. Findings were presented within a narrative synthesis and a summary of findings table. Quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.FindingsOnly two studies, both non-randomized controlled trials, met the selection criteria for this review. One was conducted in Jamaica (1975) with a follow-up period of 14 years; the other was done in Bangladesh (2002) with a six-month follow-up. At the individual study level, each of the included studies demonstrated significant differences in child development outcomes between intervention and control groups. Only the study conducted in Bangladesh demonstrated a clinically significant increase in weight-for-age z-scores in the intervention group compared to the control group.ConclusionsThe evidence supporting the recommendation of psychosocial stimulation for children with SAM is not only sparse, but also of very low quality across important outcomes. High-quality trials are needed to determine the effects of psychosocial stimulation interventions on outcomes in children with SAM.
| S-EPMC5441448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn estimated 12.8% of children and adolescents experience chronic health conditions that lead to poor quality of life, adjustment and coping issues, and concurrent mental health problems. Digital health deployment of psychosocial interventions to support youth with chronic illness has become increasingly popular with the advent of the technological advances in the digital age.ObjectiveOur objectives were to systematically review published efficacy studies of eHealth and mHealth (mobile health) psychosocial interventions for youths with chronic illnesses and review intervention theory and treatment components.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies published from 2008 to 2019 of eHealth and mHealth psychosocial interventions designed for children and adolescents with chronic illnesses in which efficacy outcomes were reported. We excluded studies of interventions for caregivers, healthy youth, disease and medication management, and telehealth interventions that function solely as a platform to connect patients to providers via phone, text, or videoconference.ResultsWe screened 2551 articles and 133 relevant full-text articles. Sixteen efficacy studies with psychosocial and health outcomes representing 12 unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 12 were randomized controlled trials and 4 were prospective cohort studies with no comparison group. Most interventions were based in cognitive behavioral theory and designed as eHealth interventions; only 2 were designed as mHealth interventions. All but 2 interventions provided access to support staff via text, phone, email, or discussion forums. The significant heterogeneity in intervention content, intervention structure, medical diagnoses, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. For example, measurement time points ranged from immediately postcompletion of the mHealth program to 18 months later, and we identified 39 unique outcomes of interest. The majority of included studies (11/16, 69%) reported significant changes in measured health and/or psychosocial posttreatment outcomes, with small to large effect sizes.ConclusionsAlthough the available literature on the efficacy of eHealth and mHealth psychosocial interventions for youth with chronic illnesses is limited, preliminary research suggests some evidence of positive treatment responses. Future studies should continue to evaluate whether digital health platforms may be a viable alternative model of delivery to traditional face-to-face approaches.
| S-EPMC7685926 | biostudies-literature