Research on psychological treatment of depression in inpatients is not conclusive,with some studies finding clear positive effects and other studies finding no significant benefit compared to usual care or structured pharmacotherapy. The results of a meta-analysis investigating how effective psychological treatment is for depressed inpatients are presented. A systematic search in bibliographical databases resulted in 12 studieswith a total of 570 respondents. This set of studies had sufficient statistical power to detect small effect sizes. Psychological treatments had a small (g=0.29), but statistically significant additional effect on depression compared to usual care and structured pharmacological treatments only. This corresponded with a numbersneeded- to-be-treated of 6.17. Heterogeneity was zero inmost analyses, and not significant in all analyses. There wasno indication for significant publication bias. Effectswere not associatedwith characteristics of the population, the interventions and the design of the studies. Although the number of studieswas small, and the quality ofmany studieswas not optimal, it seems safe to conclude that psychological treatments have a small but robust effect on depression in depressed inpatients. More high-quality research is needed to verify these results.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Objectives The aim of this review is to establish the effectiveness of psychological relapse prevention interventions, as stand-alone interventions and in combination with maintenance antidepressant treatment (M-ADM) or antidepressant medication (ADM) discontinuation for patients with remitted anxiety disorders or major depressive disorders (MDD). Methods A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological relapse prevention interventions to treatment as usual (TAU), with the proportion of relapse/recurrence and/or time to relapse/recurrence as outcome measure. Results Thirty-six RCTs were included. During a 24-month period, psychological interventions significantly reduced risk of relapse/recurrence for patients with remitted MDD (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68–0.86, p<0.001). This effect persisted with longer follow-up periods, although these results were less robust. Also, psychological interventions combined with M-ADM significantly reduced relapse during a 24-month period (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62–0.94, p = 0.010), but this effect was not significant for longer follow-up periods. No meta-analysis could be performed on relapse prevention in anxiety disorders, as only two studies focused on relapse prevention in anxiety disorders. Conclusions In patients with remitted MDD, psychological relapse prevention interventions substantially reduce risk of relapse/recurrence. It is recommended to offer these interventions to remitted MDD patients. Studies on anxiety disorders are needed.
DOCUMENT
Screening for psychological distress in patients with cancer is currently being debated in the British Journal of Cancer. Screening has been recommended, as elevated levels of distress have been consistently observed and clinicians tend to overlook the need of psychological support (Carlson et al, 2012; Carlson et al, 2013; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2013). On the other hand, it has been argued that screening should not be implemented, as the true benefit of screening and subsequent treatment of psychological distress is far from being definitively proven (Coyne, 2013). Recent findings on human resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) provide a new perspective on detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer. Humans show strong resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events, such as cancer diagnosis and treatment (Bonanno et al, 2011). This observation leads us to propose two alternative approaches towards detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer: ‘screening for psychological distress’ and ‘supporting resilience and case finding’.
DOCUMENT
