Dataset Information

Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Prisoners worldwide have substantial mental health needs, but the efficacy of psychological therapy in prisons is unknown. We aimed to systematically review psychological therapies with mental health outcomes in prisoners and qualitatively summarize difficulties in conducting randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHOD:We systematically identified RCTs of psychological therapies with mental health outcomes in prisoners (37 studies). Effect sizes were calculated and meta-analyzed. Eligible studies were assessed for quality. Subgroup and metaregression analyses were conducted to examine sources of between-study heterogeneity. Thematic analysis reviewed difficulties in conducting prison RCTs. RESULTS:In 37 identified studies, psychological therapies showed a medium effect size (0.50, 95% CI [0.34, 0.66]) with high levels of heterogeneity with the most evidence for CBT and mindfulness-based trials. Studies that used no treatment (0.77, 95% CI [0.50, 1.03]) or waitlist controls (0.71, 95% CI [0.43, 1.00]) had larger effect sizes than those that had treatment-as-usual or other psychological therapies as controls (0.21, 95% CI [0.01, 0.41]). Effects were not sustained on follow-up at 3 and 6 months. No differences were found between group and individual therapy, or different treatment types. The use of a fidelity measure was associated with lower effect sizes. Qualitative analysis identified difficulties with follow-up and institutional constraints on scheduling and implementation of trials. CONCLUSIONS:CBT and mindfulness-based therapies are modestly effective in prisoners for depression and anxiety outcomes. In prisons with existing psychological therapies, more evidence is required before additional therapies can be recommended. (PsycINFO Database Record

SUBMITTER: Yoon IA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5518650 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yoon Isabel A IA Slade Karen K Fazel Seena S

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 20170601 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Prisoners worldwide have substantial mental health needs, but the efficacy of psychological therapy in prisons is unknown. We aimed to systematically review psychological therapies with mental health outcomes in prisoners and qualitatively summarize difficulties in conducting randomized clinical trials (RCTs).<h4>Method</h4>We systematically identified RCTs of psychological therapies with mental health outcomes in prisoners (37 studies). Effect sizes were calculated and meta-an ...[more]

PMID: 28569518

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe link between mental health difficulties and terrorist behaviour has been the subject of debate for the last 50 years. Studies that report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples or compare rates for those involved and not involved in terrorism, can inform this debate and the work of those responsible for countering violent extremism.ObjectivesTo synthesise the prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples (Objective 1-Prevalence) and prevalence of mental health disorders pre-dating involvement in terrorism (Objective 2-Temporality). The review also synthesises the extent to which mental health difficulties are associated with terrorist involvement compared to non-terrorist samples (Objective 3-Risk Factor).Search methodsSearches were conducted between April and June 2022, capturing research until December 2021. We contacted expert networks, hand-searched specialist journals, harvested records from published reviews, and examined references lists for included papers to identify additional studies.Selection criteriaStudies needed to empirically examine mental health difficulties and terrorism. To be included under Objective 1 (Prevalence) and Objective 2 (Temporality), studies had to adopt cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control design and report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples, with studies under Objective 2 also needing to report prevalence of difficulties before detection or involvement in terrorism. For Objective 3 (Risk Factor) studies where there was variability in terrorist behaviour (involved vs. not involved) were included.Data collection and analysisCaptured records were screened in DisillterSR by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and random-effects meta-analysis conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.ResultsFifty-six papers reporting on 73 different terrorist samples (i.e., studies) (n = 13,648) were identified. All were eligible for Objective 1. Of the 73 studies, 10 were eligible for Objective 2 (Temporality) and nine were eligible for Objective 3 (Risk Factor). For Objective 1, the life-time prevalence rate of diagnosed mental disorder in terrorist samples (k = 18) was 17.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 11.1%-26.3%]. When collapsing all studies reporting psychological problems, disorder, and suspected disorder into one meta-analyses (k = 37), the pooled prevalence rate was 25.5% (95% CI = 20.2%-31.6%). When isolating studies reporting data for any mental health difficulty that emerged before either engagement in terrorism or detection for terrorist offences (Objective 2: Temporality), the life-time prevalence rate was 27.8% (95% CI = 20.9%-35.9%). For Objective 3 (Risk Factor), it was not appropriate to calculate a pooled effect size due the differences in comparison samples. Odds ratios for these studies ranged from 0.68 (95% CI = 0.38-1.22) to 3.13 (95% CI = 1.87-5.23). All studies were assessed as having high-risk of bias which, in part, reflects challenges conducting terrorism research.Author's conclusionsThis review does not support the assertion that terrorist samples are characterised by higher rates of mental health difficulties than would be expected in the general population. Findings have implications for future research in terms of design and reporting. There are also implications for practice with regards the inclusion of mental health difficulties as indicators of risk.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of digital psychological interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the available evidence for digital psychological interventions in reducing mental health problems in LMICs.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published in English from database inception to March 9, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials investigating digital psychological interventions in individuals with mental health problems in LMICs. We extracted data on demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, details of the intervention, including the setting, digital delivery method, control group conditions, number of sessions, therapeutic orientation (eg, cognitive therapy or behaviour therapy), presence or absence of guidance, and length of follow-up, and statistical information to calculate effect sizes. If a study reported insufficient data to calculate effect sizes, the corresponding authors were contacted to provide data that could be aggregated. We did random-effects meta-analyses, and calculated the standardised mean difference in scores of digital psychological interventions versus control conditions (Hedges'g). Quality of evidence was assessed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was post-intervention mental health problems, as measured by self-reporting instruments or clinical interviews. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019137755.FindingsWe identified 22 eligible studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies involved a total of 4104 participants (2351 who received a digital psychological intervention and 1753 who were in the control group), and mainly focused on young adults (mean age of the study population was 20-35 years) with depression or substance misuse. The results showed that digital psychological interventions are moderately effective when compared with control interventions (Hedges'g 0·60 [95% CI 0·45-0·75]; Hedges'g with treatment as usual subgroup for comparison 0·54 [0·35-0·73]). Heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=74% [95% CI 60-83]). There was no evidence of publication bias, and the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria was generally high.InterpretationDigital psychological interventions, which have been mostly studied in individuals with depression and substance misuse, are superior to control conditions, including usual care, and are moderately effective in LMICs. However, the considerable heterogeneity observed in our analysis highlights the need for more studies to be done, with standardised implementation of digital psychological intervention programmes to improve their reproducibility and efficiency. Digital psychological interventions should be considered for regions where usual care for mental health problems is minimal or absent.FundingNone.TranslationsFor the Persian, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Bahasa, Turkish, Romanian, Spanish and Thai translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:Background: Refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people experience a high burden of mental health problems owing to their experiencing traumas and stressful events.Objective: To summarise the available evidence and analyse the efficacy of brief psychological interventions (< 3 months) on improving mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in refugees.Method: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus from inception to 19 December 2023. We included controlled studies using any cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or CBT-based therapies delivered over a short time (< 3 months), which reported mental health outcomes pre-and post-intervention. We conducted meta-analyses using random effects to derive pooled summary statistics. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2) and ROBINS-I tools. This study is registered on the Open Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9CXU4.Results: 34 eligible studies across 37 publications were retrieved for analysis, and 33 studies with 4479 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There was an overall improvement in immediate mental health outcomes for all three domains, with analysis of 13 studies on anxiety outcomes (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.52), 20 studies on depression (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.11), and 24 studies on PTSD (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.45). At 3 to 6-month follow-up, however, analysis of mental health outcomes shows no significant change from baseline, with a SMD of 0.24 (95% CI -0.94 to 1.42) across 4 studies, -0.73 (95% CI -2.14 to 0.68) across 9 studies, and 0.29 (95% CI -0.94 to 1.53) across 12 studies for anxiety, depression, and PTSD respectively.Conclusion: Low-quality evidence shows brief psychological interventions have a positive immediate effect on refugees and internally displaced people's mental well-being. However, these effects do not persist in the short-term follow up. Heterogeneity was high, even among subgroups, impacting our findings' generalisability.

Project description:ObjectivesDetermine effect of mental health interventions on psychologic outcomes in informal caregivers of critically ill patients.Data sourcesSearches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from inception to October 31, 2019.Study selectionInterventions for informal caregivers of critically ill patients in adult ICU, PICU, or neonatal ICU.Data extractionTwo independent, blinded reviewers screened citations and extracted data. Random-effects models with inverse variance weighting pooled outcome data when suitable. Psychologic outcomes categorized: 1) negative (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, distress, and burden) or 2) positive (courage, humanity, justice, transcendence, temperance, and wisdom and knowledge). Stratification according to intervention type and patient population was performed.Data synthesisOf 11,201 studies, 102 interventional trials were included (n = 12,676 informal caregivers). Interventions targeted caregiver experience (n = 58), role (n = 6), or support (n = 38). Meta-analysis (56 randomized controlled trials; n = 22 [39%] in adult ICUs; n = 34 [61%] in neonatal ICU or PICU) demonstrated reduced anxiety (ratio of means = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97) and depression (ratio of means = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99), but not post-traumatic stress disorder (ratio of means = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.04) or distress (ratio of means = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.07) among informal caregivers randomized to mental health interventions compared with controls within 3 months post-ICU discharge. Increased humanity (ratio of means = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15), transcendence (ratio of means = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15), and caregiver burden (ratio of means = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12) were observed. No significant effects of mental health interventions observed after 3 months postdischarge.ConclusionsMental health interventions for caregivers of critically ill patients improved short-term anxiety, depression, humanity, and transcendence while increasing burden. Clinicians should consider short-term prescriptions of mental health interventions to informal caregivers of critically ill patients with capacity to manage interventions.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Outcomes of psychological therapies for prisoners with mental health problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets