Dataset Information

Psychosocial Interventions and Wellbeing in Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: A number of studies, including systematic reviews, show beneficial effects of psychosocial interventions for people with diabetes mellitus; however, they have not been assessed using meta-analysis. The purpose of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is to investigate the effects of psychosocial interventions on depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life and self-efficacy in individuals with diabetes mellitus. Methods: The databases Pubmed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and SocINDEX were searched with no year restriction. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials published in English that included individuals diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, aged 18 years or above, who engaged in a psychosocial intervention, with outcome measures addressing depressive or anxiety symptomology, quality of life or self-efficacy. Eligible studies needed to compare the intervention to usual care. Study selection was completed using Covidence and meta-analysis was undertaken using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies investigated the effects of psychosocial interventions and showed a medium to large benefit for depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.70; CI: -1.27, -0.13) which persisted at follow up (SMD: -1.54, CI: -2.97, -0.12). Similar results were not seen immediately post-intervention in the three studies that assessed anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.30; CI: -0.69, 0.10); however, a medium beneficial effect was seen at follow up (SMD = -0.61, CI = -0.92 to -0.31). Small benefits were seen in the three studies assessing quality of life outcomes (SMD: 0.30, CI: 0.06, 0.55). No benefit was seen in the two studies assessing self-efficacy (SMD: 0.23, CI: -0.11, 0.57). Conclusions: The results of the current study provide preliminary evidence that psychosocial interventions, compared to usual care, reduce depressive symptoms, and may improve quality of life in individuals with diabetes. However, only a few studies were included and the clinical significance of these findings is unknown.

SUBMITTER: Pascoe MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5723413 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychosocial Interventions and Wellbeing in Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pascoe Michaela C MC Thompson David R DR Castle David J DJ Jenkins Zoe M ZM Ski Chantal F CF

Frontiers in psychology 20171205

<b>Purpose:</b> A number of studies, including systematic reviews, show beneficial effects of psychosocial interventions for people with diabetes mellitus; however, they have not been assessed using meta-analysis. The purpose of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is to investigate the effects of psychosocial interventions on depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life and self-efficacy in individuals with diabetes mellitus. <b>Methods:</b> The databases Pubmed, MEDLINE, CINA ...[more]

PMID: 29259563

Similar Datasets

Project description:Diabetes distress (DD) disproportionately affects vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and interventions targeting this population are therefore relevant. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the evidence for an effect of psychosocial interventions for reducing DD, and, secondly HbA1c, depression, and health-related quality of life in vulnerable people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Vulnerability encompasses poor glycemic control (HbA1c >7.5%) and at least one additional risk factor for poor diabetes outcomes such as low educational level, comorbidity, and risky lifestyle behavior. The interventions should be theoretically founded and include cognition- or emotion-focused elements. We systematically searched four databases for articles published between January 1995 and March 2018. Eighteen studies testing a variety of psychosocial interventions in 4,066 patients were included. We adhered to the Cochrane methodology and PRISMA guidelines. Review Manager 5.3 was used for data extraction and risk of bias assessment, and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the quality of the evidence. Data were pooled using the fixed or random effects method as appropriate. We investigated effects of individual vs group, intensive vs brief interventions, and interventions with and without motivational interviewing in subgroup analyses. To assess the robustness of effect estimates, sensitivity analyses excluding studies with high risk of bias and attrition >20% were conducted. We found low to moderate quality evidence for a significant small effect of psychosocial interventions on DD, and very low to moderate quality evidence for no effect on HbA1c, both outcomes assessed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up. The effect on depression was small, while there was no effect on health-related quality of life. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that interventions using motivational interviewing and individual interventions were associated with incremental effects on DD. Likewise, intensive interventions were associated with significant reductions in both DD and HbA1c.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the recent global mental health movement of the transition from hospital-centred to integrated community-based services, comprehensive evidence of psychosocial interventions focusing on community-dwelling individuals with schizophrenia is still lacking. To overcome this gap in the current knowledge, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of all types of psychosocial interventions for community-dwelling (non-hospitalised) individuals with schizophrenia when compared with non-active control conditions (eg, treatment as usual).Methods and analysisThis study protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. By March 2022, the following sources will have been searched, without restrictions for language or publication period: Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will also try to identify other potentially eligible studies by searching the reference lists of included studies, other relevant systematic reviews and grey literature. All relevant randomised controlled trials from both high-income and low-income to middle-income countries will be allowed. Two independent reviewers will conduct the selection/screening of studies, data extraction and methodological quality assessment of included studies. The primary outcomes are quality of life and psychiatric hospital admission. Standard pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model will be conducted. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomised Trials. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study. The study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations as well as peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42021266187.

Project description:BackgroundThe proliferation of digital technology has the potential to transform diabetes management. One of the critical aspects of modern diabetes management remains the achievement of glycemic targets to avoid acute and long-term complications.ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the landscape of evidence pertaining to the relative effectiveness or efficacy and safety of various digital interventions for the self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a primary focus on reducing glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels.MethodsA systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL on April 5, 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Eligibility criteria for the SLR included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies evaluating interventions containing both human (eg, coaching) and digital components (eg, glucose meter) in adult patients with T2DM. The primary meta-analysis was restricted to studies that reported laboratory-measured HbA1c. In secondary analyses, meta-regression was performed with the intensity of coaching in the digital intervention as a categorical covariate.ResultsIn total, 28 studies were included in this analysis. Most studies (23/28, 82%) used the reduction of HbA1c levels as the primary end point, either directly or as a part of a multicomponent outcome. In total, 21 studies reported statistically significant results with this primary end point. When stratified into 3 intervention categories by the intensity of the intervention supporting the digital health technology (analyzing all 28 studies), the success rate appeared to be proportional to the coaching intensity (ie, higher-intensity studies reported higher success rates). When the analysis was restricted to RCTs using the comparative improvement of HbA1c levels, the effectiveness of the interventions was less clear. Only half (12/23, 52%) of the included RCTs reported statistically significant results. The meta-analyses were broadly aligned with the results of the SLR. The primary analysis estimated a greater reduction in HbA1c associated with digital interventions compared with usual care (-0.31%, 95% CI -0.45% to -0.16%; P<.001). Meta-regression estimated reductions of -0.45% (95% CI -0.81% to -0.09%; P=.02), -0.29% (95% CI -0.48% to -0.11%; P=.003), and -0.28% (95% CI -0.65% to 0.09%; P=.20) associated with high-, medium-, and low-intensity interventions, respectively.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that reducing HbA1c levels in individuals with T2DM with the help of digital interventions is feasible, effective, and acceptable. One common feature of effective digital health interventions was the availability of timely and responsive personalized coaching by a dedicated health care professional.

Project description:IntroductionGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most prevalent diseases during pregnancy, which is closely associated with many short-term and long-term maternal and neonatal complications and can incur heavy financial burden on both families and society. Web-based interventions have been used to manage GDM because of the advantages of high accessibility and flexibility, but their effectiveness has remained inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively investigate the multidimensional effectiveness of web-based interventions for pregnant women with GDM, thereby aiding implementation decisions in clinical settings.Methods and analysisThis systematic review protocol strictly adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO) will be comprehensively searched from their inception to 26 January 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials regarding the efficacy of web-based interventions for pregnant women with GDM on glycaemic control, behavioural outcomes, cognitive and attitudinal outcomes, mental health, maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes, and medical service utilisation and costs. Two reviewers will independently conduct the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. The methodological quality of included studies will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project assessment tool. The overall meta-analyses for each of the interested outcomes will be performed if the outcome data are sufficient and provides similar effect measures, as well as subgroup analyses for glycaemic control indicators based on the different types of intervention format, interactivity and technology. We will conduct a qualitative synthesis for studies that cannot be quantitatively synthesised.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review as no human participants will be involved. The results will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal or an academic conference.Prospero registration numberCRD42022296625.

Dataset Information

Psychosocial Interventions and Wellbeing in Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Psychosocial Interventions and Wellbeing in Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets