Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Self-harm and Suicidal Behavior Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Self-harm and suicidal behavior are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among children and adolescents. The comparative performance of psychotherapies for suicidality is unclear because few head-to-head clinical trials have been conducted.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of psychotherapies for the treatment of self-harm and suicidality among children and adolescents.

Data sources

Four major bibliographic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase) were searched for clinical trials comparing psychotherapy with control conditions from inception to September 2020.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing psychotherapies for suicidality and/or self-harm with control conditions among children and adolescents were included after a blinded review by 3 independent reviewers (A.B., M.P., and J.W.).

Data extraction and synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed for data abstraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate study-level risk of bias. Data abstraction was performed by 1 reviewer (A.B.) and confirmed by 2 independent blinded reviewers (J.W. and M.P.). Data were analyzed from October 15, 2020, to February 15, 2021.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcomes were dichotomized self-harm and retention in treatment. The secondary outcomes were dichotomized all-cause treatment discontinuation and scores on instruments measuring suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms. Effect sizes were pooled using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis models to generate summary odds ratios (ORs) and Cohen d standardized mean differences (SMDs). Negative Cohen d SMDs or ORs less than 1 indicated that the treatment reduced the parameter of interest relative to the control condition (eg, signifying a beneficial association with suicidal ideation).

Results

The systematic search generated 1272 unique records. Of those, 44 randomized clinical trials (5406 total participants; 4109 female participants [76.0%]) from 49 articles were selected (5 follow-up studies were merged with their primary clinical trials to avoid publication bias). The selected clinical trials spanned January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2020. The median duration of treatment was 3 months (range, 0.25-12.00 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range, 1-36 months). None of the investigated psychotherapies were associated with increases in study withdrawals or improvements in retention in treatment compared with treatment as usual. Dialectical behavioral therapies were associated with reductions in self-harm (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64) and suicidal ideation (Cohen d SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.23) at the end of treatment, while mentalization-based therapies were associated with decreases in self-harm (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.97) and suicidal ideation (Cohen d SMD, -1.22; 95% CI, -2.18 to -0.26) at the end of follow-up. The quality of evidence was downgraded because of high risk of bias overall, heterogeneity, publication bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.

Conclusions and relevance

Although some psychotherapeutic modalities appear to be acceptable and efficacious for reducing self-harm and suicidality among children and adolescents, methodological issues and high risk of bias prevent a consistent estimate of their comparative performance.

SUBMITTER: Bahji A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8052594 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among children and adolescents who are exposed to trauma, and it is often associated with significant negative impacts on their psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Many types of psychotherapies have been found to be effective for PTSD in children and adolescents. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons between different psychotherapies, the hierarchy of treatment efficacy is still unclear. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of various types of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents.A systematic search will be conducted among eight electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) and ProQuest Dissertations, from inception to October 2017. Randomised controlled trials, regardless of language, publication year and publication type, comparing any psychotherapies for PTSD to any control condition or alternative treatment in children and adolescents (18 years old or less) diagnosed with full or subclinical PTSD will be included. Study duration and the number of treatment sessions will not be limited. The primary outcome will be PTSD symptom severity at post-treatment as measured by a rating scale reported by the child, parent or a clinician. The secondary outcomes will include: (1) efficacy at follow-up; (2) acceptability (all-cause discontinuation); (3) anxiety symptom severity; (4) depressive symptom severity and (5) quality of life and functional improvement. Bayesian network meta-analyses for all relative outcome measures will be performed. We will conduct subgroup and sensitivity network meta-analyses to determine whether the findings are affected by study characteristics. The quality of the evidence contributing to network estimates of the primary outcome will be evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.No ethical issues are foreseen. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, which will be disseminated electronically and in print. This network meta-analysis may be updated to inform and guide the clinical management of PTSD in children and adolescents.CRD42016051786.

Project description:BackgroundDepressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.FindingsFrom 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.InterpretationDespite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.FundingNational Key Research and Development Program of China.

Project description:ImportanceAnxiety disorders are common in children and adolescents, and uncertainty remains regarding the optimal strategy of psychotherapies in this population.ObjectiveTo compare and rank the different types of psychotherapies and the different ways of delivering psychological treatments for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ProQuest Dissertations, LILACS (Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde), international trial registers, and US Food and Drug Administration reports were searched from inception to November 30, 2017.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials that compared any structured psychotherapy with another psychotherapy or a control condition for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents were selected.Data extraction and synthesisFour researchers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analysis within the random-effects model were used to synthesize data.Main outcomes and measuresEfficacy (change in anxiety symptoms) posttreatment and at follow-up, acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and quality of life and functional improvement were measured. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.ResultsA total of 101 unique trials including 6625 unique participants compared 11 different psychotherapies with 4 specific control conditions. The certainty of evidence was rated as low or very low for most comparisons. For efficacy, most psychotherapies were significantly more effective than the wait list condition posttreatment (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.43 to -0.61) and at the longest follow-up (SMD, -1.84 to -1.64). However, only group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was significantly more effective than the other psychotherapies and all control conditions posttreatment. For acceptability, bibliotherapy CBT had significantly more all-cause discontinuations than some psychotherapies and control conditions (range of odds ratios, 2.48-9.32). In terms of quality of life and functional improvement, CBT (delivered in different ways) was significantly beneficial compared with psychological placebo and the wait list condition (SMDs, 0.73 to 1.99).Conclusions and relevanceGroup CBT would be the more appropriate choice of psychotherapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, based on these findings. Other types of psychotherapies and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Further research is needed to explore specific anxiety disorders, disorder-specific psychotherapy, and moderators of treatment effect.Trial registrationPROSPERO Identifier: CRD42015016283.

Project description:Objective An estimated 3.8% of the global population experiences depression, according to the [2019] WHO report. Evidence supports the efficacy of exercise training (EX) for depression; however, its comparative efficacy to conventional, evidence-supported psychotherapies remains understudied. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of exercise training (EX), behavioral activation therapy (BA), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and non-directive supportive therapy (NDST). Methods Our search was performed in seven relevant databases (inception to March 10, 2020) and targeted randomized trials comparing psychological interventions head-to-head and/or to a treatment as usual (TAU) or waitlist (WL) control for the treatment of adults (18 years or older) with depression. Included trials assessed depression using a validated psychometric tool. Results From 28,716 studies, 133 trials with 14,493 patients (mean age of 45.8 years; 71.9% female) were included. All treatment arms significantly outperformed TAU (standard mean difference [SMD] range, −0.49 to −0.95) and WL (SMD range, −0.80 to −1.26) controls. According to surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities, BA was mostly likely to have the highest efficacy (1.6), followed by CBT (1.9), EX (2.8), and NDST (3.8). Effect size estimates between BA and CBT (SMD = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.50 to 0.31]), BA and EX (−0.22, [−0.68 to 0.24]), and CBT and EX (−0.12, [−0.42 to 0.17]) were very small, suggesting comparable treatment effects of BA, CBT, and EX. With individual comparisons of EX, BA, and CBT to NDST, we found small to moderate effect sizes (0.09 to 0.46), suggesting EX, BA, and CBT may equally outperform NDST. Conclusions Findings provide preliminary yet cautionary support for the clinical use of exercise training for adult depression. High study heterogeneity and lack of sound investigations of exercise must be considered. Continued research is needed to position exercise training as an evidence-based therapy.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate differences and similarities in risk factors for deliberate self-harm (DSH) and suicidal attempt (SA), and the role of impulsivity among a group of community adolescents.SettingThis is a cross-sectional study conducted at high schools in Northern Taiwan.Data and participantsWe recruited grade 1 students from 14 high schools. A total of 5879 participants (mean age 16.02 years, female adolescents: 57.7%) completed the online assessment.Outcome measuresParticipants completed online questionnaires about sociodemographic data, suicidality, history of DSH and SA, depressed mood, self-esteem, social support, family discord, impulsivity (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11)) and the use of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs. A subsample was interviewed about lifetime SA, and the results were compared with those from the online questionnaires.ResultsIn our sample, 25% of the students had lifetime DSH and 3.5% had lifetime SA. Two hundred and seventy-two students received face-to-face interviews. The concordance between the online questionnaires and interviews in terms of ascertaining cases of SA was moderate (concordance rate 82.76%; kappa value 0.59). Similar risk factors for DSH/SA among the whole sample included female gender, lower academic performance, depression, substance use (tobacco and alcohol) and low self-esteem. The BIS-11 score was correlated with DSH. Factor 3 score of the BIS-11 (novelty seeking) was correlated with DSH in both boys and girls, whereas factor 2 score (lack of self-control) was correlated with SA in boys. Social support was a protective factor against SA among the female adolescents. Gender modulated the association of impulsivity and DSH/SA. Associations between impulsivity and DSH and SA were particularly strong among boys.ConclusionsRisk factors for DSH and SA were similar, but not identical. Early identification of those at risk and appropriate interventions may be helpful.

Project description:BackgroundSuicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm are common in adolescents and are strongly associated with suicide attempts. We aimed to identify predictors of future suicide attempts in these high-risk groups.MethodsParticipants were from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a population-based birth cohort study in the UK. The sample included 456 adolescents who reported suicidal thoughts and 569 who reported non-suicidal self-harm at 16 years of age. Logistic regression analyses were used to explore associations between a wide range of prospectively recorded risk factors and future suicide attempts, assessed at the age of 21 years.Findings38 (12%) of 310 participants with suicidal thoughts and 46 (12%) of 380 participants who had engaged in non-suicidal self-harm reported having attempted suicide for the first time by the follow-up at 21 years of age. Among participants with suicidal thoughts, the strongest predictors of transition to attempts were non-suicidal self-harm (odds ratio [OR] 2·78, 95% CI 1·35-5·74; p=0·0059), cannabis use (2·61, 1·11-6·14; p=0·029), other illicit drug use (2·47, 1·02-5·96; p=0·045), exposure to self-harm (family 2·03, 0·93-4·44, p=0·076; friend 1·85, 0·93-3·69, p=0·081), and higher levels of the personality type intellect/openness (1·62, 1·06-2·46; p=0·025). Among participants with non-suicidal self-harm at baseline, the strongest predictors were cannabis use (OR 2·14, 95% CI 1·04-4·41; p=0·038), other illicit drug use (2·17, 1·10-4·27; p=0·025), sleep problems (waking in the night 1·91, 0·95-3·84, p=0·069; insufficient sleep 1·97, 1·02-3·81, p=0·043), and lower levels of the personality type extraversion (0·71, 0·49-1·03; p=0·068).InterpretationMost adolescents who think about suicide or engage in non-suicidal self-harm will not make an attempt on their life. Many commonly cited risk factors were not associated with transition to suicide attempt among these high-risk groups. Our findings suggest that asking about substance use, non-suicidal self-harm, sleep, personality traits, and exposure to self-harm could inform risk assessments, and might help clinicians to identify which adolescents are at greatest risk of attempting suicide in the future.FundingAmerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, and the University of Bristol.