Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Psychological and/or Educational Interventions in the Prevention of Anxiety: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

To our knowledge, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied populations.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied population types.

Data sources

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on literature searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources from inception to March 7, 2017.

Study selection

A search was performed of randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varying populations free of anxiety at baseline as measured using validated instruments. There was no setting or language restriction. Eligibility criteria assessment was conducted by 2 of us.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration's tool) were performed by 2 of us. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity was explored by random-effects meta-regression.

Main outcomes and measures

Incidence of new cases of anxiety disorders or reduction of anxiety symptoms as measured by validated instruments.

Results

Of the 3273 abstracts reviewed, 131 were selected for full-text review, and 29 met the inclusion criteria, representing 10 430 patients from 11 countries on 4 continents. Meta-analysis calculations were based on 36 comparisons. The pooled SMD was -0.31 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.21; P < .001) and heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 61.1%; 95% CI, 44% to 73%). There was evidence of publication bias, but the effect size barely varied after adjustment (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.17; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of effect size results. A meta-regression including 5 variables explained 99.6% of between-study variability, revealing an association between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (β = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.11]; P = .005) and a lower sample size (lg) (β = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.23]; P = .001). No association was observed with risk of bias, family physician providing intervention, and use of standardized interviews as outcomes.

Conclusions and relevance

Psychological and/or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention in all populations evaluated. Although more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxiety prevention programs should be further developed and implemented.

SUBMITTER: Moreno-Peral P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710546 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patient activation interventions (PAIs) engage patients in care by promoting increased knowledge, confidence, and/or skills for disease self-management. However, little is known about the impact of these interventions on a wide range of outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes (DM2), or which of these interventions, if any, have the greatest impact on glycemic control.Electronic databases were searched from inception through November 2011. Of 16,290 citations, two independent reviewers identified 138 randomized trials comparing PAIs to usual care/control groups in adults with DM2 that reported intermediate or long-term outcomes or harms. For meta-analyses of continuous outcomes, we used a random-effects model to derive pooled weighted mean differences (WMD). For all-cause mortality, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) using Peto's method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I (2) statistic and conducted meta-regression using a random-effects model when I (2)?>?50 %. A priori meta-regression primary variables included: intervention strategies, intervention leader, baseline outcome value, quality, and study duration.PAIs modestly reduced intermediate outcomes [A1c: WMD 0.37 %, CI 0.28-0.45 %, I (2) 83 %; SBP: WMD 2.2 mmHg, CI 1.0-3.5 mmHg, I (2) 72 %; body weight: WMD 2.3 lbs, CI 1.3-3.2 lbs, I (2) 64 %; and LDL-c: WMD 4.2 mg/dL, CI 1.5-6.9 mg/dL, I (2) 64 %]. The evidence was moderate for A1c, low/very low for other intermediate outcomes, low for long-term mortality and very low for complications. Interventions had no effect on hypoglycemia (evidence: low) or short-term mortality (evidence: moderate). Higher baseline A1c, pharmacist-led interventions, and longer follow-up were associated with larger A1c improvements. No intervention strategy outperformed any other in adjusted meta-regression.PAIs modestly improve A1c in adults with DM2 without increasing short-term mortality. These results support integration of these interventions into primary care for adults with uncontrolled glycemia, and provide evidence to insurers who do not yet cover these programs.

Project description:BackgroundSocial anxiety disorder-a chronic and naturally unremitting disease that causes substantial impairment-can be treated with pharmacological, psychological, and self-help interventions. We aimed to compare these interventions and to identify which are most effective for the acute treatment of social anxiety disorder in adults.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for adults with social anxiety disorder, identified from published and unpublished sources between 1988 and Sept 13, 2013. We analysed interventions by class and individually. Outcomes were validated measures of social anxiety, reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) compared with a waitlist reference. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003146.FindingsWe included 101 trials (13 164 participants) of 41 interventions or control conditions (17 classes) in the analyses. Classes of pharmacological interventions that had greater effects on outcomes compared with waitlist were monoamine oxidase inhibitors (SMD -1·01, 95% credible interval [CrI] -1·56 to -0·45), benzodiazepines (-0·96, -1·56 to -0·36), selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs; -0·91, -1·23 to -0·60), and anticonvulsants (-0·81, -1·36 to -0·28). Compared with waitlist, efficacious classes of psychological interventions were individual cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; SMD -1·19, 95% CrI -1·56 to -0·81), group CBT (-0·92, -1·33 to -0·51), exposure and social skills (-0·86, -1·42 to -0·29), self-help with support (-0·86, -1·36 to -0·36), self-help without support (-0·75, -1·25 to -0·26), and psychodynamic psychotherapy (-0·62, -0·93 to -0·31). Individual CBT compared with psychological placebo (SMD -0·56, 95% CrI -1·00 to -0·11), and SSRIs and SNRIs compared with pill placebo (-0·44, -0·67 to -0·22) were the only classes of interventions that had greater effects on outcomes than appropriate placebo. Individual CBT also had a greater effect than psychodynamic psychotherapy (SMD -0·56, 95% CrI -1·03 to -0·11) and interpersonal psychotherapy, mindfulness, and supportive therapy (-0·82, -1·41 to -0·24).InterpretationIndividual CBT (which other studies have shown to have a lower risk of side-effects than pharmacotherapy) is associated with large effect sizes. Thus, it should be regarded as the best intervention for the initial treatment of social anxiety disorder. For individuals who decline psychological intervention, SSRIs show the most consistent evidence of benefit.FundingNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Project description:BackgroundThere is sufficient meta-analytic evidence that antenatal interventions for women at risk (selective prevention) or for women with severe psychological symptoms (indicated prevention) are effective in reducing postpartum distress. However, women without risk or severe psychological symptoms might also experience distress. This meta-analysis focused on the effectiveness of preventive psychological interventions offered to universal populations of pregnant women on symptoms of depression, anxiety, and general stress. Paternal and infant outcomes were also included.MethodWe included 12 universal prevention studies in the meta-analysis, incorporating a total of 2559 pregnant women.ResultsOverall, ten studies included depression as an outcome measure, five studies included stress, and four studies anxiety. There was a moderate effect of preventive interventions implemented during pregnancy on the combined measure of maternal distress (d = .52), on depressive symptoms (d = .50), and on stress (d = .52). The effect on anxiety (d = .30) was smaller. The effects were not associated with intervention timing, intervention type, intervention delivery mode, timing of post-test, and methodological quality. The number of studies including partner and/or infant outcomes was too low to assess their effectiveness.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that universal prevention during pregnancy is effective on decreasing symptoms of maternal distress compared to routine care, at least with regard to depression. While promising, the results with regard to anxiety and stress are based on a considerably lower number of studies, and should thus be interpreted with caution. More research is needed on preventing other types of maternal distress beyond depression. Furthermore, there is a lack of research with regard to paternal distress. Also, given the large variety in interventions, more research is needed on which elements of universal prevention work. Finally, as maternal distress symptoms can affect infant development, it is important to investigate whether the positive effects of the preventive interventions extend from mother to infant.Systematic review registration numberInternational prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42018098861.