Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Psychological Interventions for Psychological Crisis in People Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective: The objective of our current research is to compare the different psychological interventions and distinguish the most effective way to treat psychological crisis according to different clinical manifestations in people affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). No previous systematic review has provided a comprehensive overview by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of this current topic. Method: A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, case-control studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS), cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies of all the available interventions for psychological crisis in people affected by COVID-19. We searched the electronic databases EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library, as well as the Chinese databases such as Sinomed, Chinese Biomedicine Literature (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), WanFang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), from 2019 to April 30, 2020. The main outcomes were self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), and symptom checklist (SCL-90). The study is registered with Inplasy, number 202050076. Result: Sixteen self-controlled case series (SCCS) comprising 1,147 participants compared five different psychological interventions with four different measurement scales were included in this study. For effectiveness, all the psychological therapies were significantly more effective than before intervention. Our results showed that supportive therapy (ST), which is adjusted to the COVID-19-related mental crisis, is the best treatment compared with behavioral therapy (BT), nursing-based psychological therapy (NBPT), traditional Chinese medicine therapy (TCMT), and COVID-19-related standard training (CRST) at reducing the anxiety-related symptoms assessed by SAS. When measured by SDS, BT was better than ST and NBPT treatment for reducing the depression symptoms. And ST was better than BT and ST+BT as assessed by PHQ-9. In the end, the last network meta-analysis indicated that NBPT was more effective than ST by the measurement of SCL-90. Conclusion: Our research suggested the potential effectiveness of psychological interventions for decreasing psychological crisis in people affected by COVID-19 and try to introduce the best effective treatment options for clinical practice according to the clinical manifestations of psychological problems, but further confirmation from high-quality RCTs is needed.

SUBMITTER: Yang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7937808 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Psychological Interventions for Psychological Crisis in People Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Yang Yang Y Sun Shaodan S Hu Shaowen S Tang Chunzhi C Zhang Yimin Y Lin Haibo H

Frontiers in psychology 20210222

<b>Objective:</b> The objective of our current research is to compare the different psychological interventions and distinguish the most effective way to treat psychological crisis according to different clinical manifestations in people affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). No previous systematic review has provided a comprehensive overview by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of this current topic. <b>Method:</b> A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis wer ...[more]

PMID: 33692715

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are a crucial suite of measures to prevent and control infectious disease outbreaks. Despite being particularly important for crisis-affected populations and those living in informal settlements, who typically reside in overcrowded and resource limited settings with inadequate access to healthcare, guidance on NPI implementation rarely takes the specific needs of such populations into account. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review of the published evidence to describe the landscape of research and identify evidence gaps concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs among crisis-affected populations and informal settlements.MethodsWe systematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles published between 1970 and 2020 to collate available evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of NPIs in crisis-affected populations and informal settlements. We performed quality assessments of each study using a standardised questionnaire. We analysed the data to produce descriptive summaries according to a number of categories: date of publication; geographical region of intervention; typology of crisis, shelter, modes of transmission, NPI, research design; study design; and study quality.ResultsOur review included 158 studies published in 85 peer-reviewed articles. Most research used low quality study designs. The acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs was highly context dependent. In general, simple and cost-effective interventions such as community-level environmental cleaning and provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services, and distribution of items for personal protection such as insecticide-treated nets, were both highly feasible and acceptable. Logistical, financial, and human resource constraints affected both the implementation and sustainability of measures. Community engagement emerged as a strong factor contributing to the effectiveness of NPIs. Conversely, measures that involve potential restriction on personal liberty such as case isolation and patient care and burial restrictions were found to be less acceptable, despite apparent effectiveness.ConclusionsOverall, the evidence base was variable, with substantial knowledge gaps which varied between settings and pathogens. Based on the current landscape, robust evidence-based guidance is not possible, and a research agenda is urgently required that focusses on these specific vulnerable populations. Although implementation of NPIs presents unique practical challenges in these settings, it is critical that such an agenda is put in place, and that the lessons learned from historical and present experiences are documented to build a firm evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of data regarding how the Delta variant of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines at preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalization.MethodsWe compared the effectiveness of the three vaccines during the pre- and post-Delta variant period (before and after 1 July 2021) in a large cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in the Michigan Medicine healthcare system. We assessed vaccine effectiveness (VE) using 2 analyses: an inverse propensity weighted (IPW) Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis based on time from vaccination, and a Cox model based on calendar time with vaccination as a time-varying covariate.ResultsCompared to Ad26.COV2.S recipients, the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 in the post-Delta variant period was lower for BNT162b2 recipients (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [.14-.98]; P = .05) and mRNA-1273 recipients (HR = 0.21; 95% CI: [.07-.64]; P = .006). Recipients of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than Ad26.COV2.S recipients (HR = 0.6; 95% CI: [.43-.83]; P = .003) and BNT162b2 recipients (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: [.54-.76]; P < .001). After 1 July, efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection declined for Ad26.COV2.S recipients (VE = 76% before; VE = 49% after; P = .02), BNT162b2 recipients (VE = 87% before; VE = 52% after; P < .001), and mRNA-1273 recipients (VE = 92% before; VE = 70% after; P < .001). Waning immunity and the Delta variant contributed independently and significantly to this decline.ConclusionsAlthough there is a substantial decline in effectiveness, the approved COVID-19 vaccines remain effective against infection and hospitalization due to the Delta variant. The mRNA-based vaccines are more effective than the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.

Project description:BackgroundThe global pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a major public health problem and presents an unprecedented challenge. However, no specific drugs were currently proven. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions in patients with COVID-19.MethodsMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/SARS-CoV. Random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework was performed, followed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system assessing the quality of evidence. The primary outcome of interest includes mortality, cure, viral negative conversion, and overall adverse events (OAEs). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.ResultsSixty-six RCTs with 19,095 patients were included, involving standard of care (SOC), eight different antiviral agents, six different antibiotics, high and low dose chloroquine (CQ_HD, CQ_LD), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), corticosteroids (COR), and other treatments. Compared with SOC, a significant reduction of mortality was observed for TCM (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20-0.56, moderate quality) and COR (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96, low quality) with improved cure rate (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.60-2.91, low quality for TCM; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05-1.30, low quality for COR). However, an increased risk of mortality was found for CQ_HD vs. SOC (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.18-8.73, low quality). TCM was associated with decreased risk of OAE (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.70, very low quality) but CQ_HD (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.20-5.24) and interferons (IFN) (OR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.02-7.08) vs. SOC with very low quality were associated with an increased risk.ConclusionsCOR and TCM may reduce mortality and increase cure rate with no increased risk of OAEs compared with standard care. CQ_HD might increase the risk of mortality. CQ, IFN, and other antiviral agents could increase the risk of OAEs. The current evidence is generally uncertain with low-quality and further high-quality trials are needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The current ongoing pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has globally affected 213 countries and territories with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases and thousands of casualties. The unpredictable and uncertain COVID-19 outbreak has the potential of adversely affecting the psychological health on individual and community level. Currently all efforts are focused on the understanding of epidemiology, clinical features, mode of transmission, counteract the spread of the virus, and challenges of global health, while crucially significant mental health has been overlooked in this endeavor. METHOD:This review is to evaluate past outbreaks to understand the extent of adverse effects on psychological health, psychological crisis intervention, and mental health management plans. Published previous and current articles on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Elsevier about psychological impact of infectious diseases outbreaks and COVID-19 has been considered and reviewed. COMMENTS:COVID-19 is leading to intense psychosocial issues and comprising mental health marking a secondary health concern all around the world. Globally implementing preventive and controlling measures, and cultivating coping and resilience are challenging factors; modified lifestyle (lockdown curfew, self-isolation, social distancing and quarantine); conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation about the origin, scale, signs, symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment; global socioeconomic crisis; travel restrictions; workplace hazard control; postponement and cancellation of religious, sports, cultural and entertainment events; panic buying and hoarding; incidents of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, stigma, psychological pressure of productivity, marginalization and violence; overwhelmed medical centers and health organizations, and general impact on education, politics, socioeconomic, culture, environment and climate - are some of the risk factors to aggravate further problems.

Project description:To establish the feasibility of empirically testing crisis standards of care guidelines.DesignRetrospective single-center study.SettingICUs at a large academic medical center in the United States.SubjectsAdult, critically ill patients admitted to ICU, with 27 patients admitted for acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and 37 patients admitted for diagnoses other than coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsReview of electronic health record.Measurements and main resultsMany U.S. states released crisis standards of care guidelines with algorithms to allocate scarce healthcare resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We compared state guidelines that represent different approaches to incorporating disease severity and comorbidities: New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. Following each algorithm, we calculated priority scores at the time of ICU admission for a cohort of patients with primary diagnoses of coronavirus disease 2019 and diseases other than coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 64). We assessed discrimination of 28-day mortality by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We simulated real-time decision-making by applying the triage algorithms to groups of two, five, or 10 patients. For prediction of 28-day mortality by priority scores, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56, 0.49, 0.53, 0.66, and 0.69 for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. For groups of five patients, the percentage of decisions made without deferring to a lottery were 1%, 57%, 80%, 88%, and 95% for New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and raw Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score algorithms, respectively. The percentage of decisions made without lottery was higher in the subcohort without coronavirus disease 2019, compared with the subcohort with coronavirus disease 2019.ConclusionsInclusion of comorbidities does not consistently improve an algorithm's performance in predicting 28-day mortality. Crisis standards of care algorithms result in a substantial percentage of tied priority scores. Crisis standards of care algorithms operate differently in cohorts with and without coronavirus disease 2019. This proof-of-principle study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of empirical testing of crisis standards of care guidelines to understand whether they meet their goals.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Psychological Interventions for Psychological Crisis in People Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Multiple Psychological Interventions for Psychological Crisis in People Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets