Search

Background: Mental health problems are becoming increasingly prevalent among students and adequate support should be provided to prevent and treat mental health disorders in those at risk.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of psychological interventions for students, with consideration of how adaptions to intervention content and delivery could improve outcomes. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in students with or at risk of mental health problems and extracted data for study characteristics, symptom severity, wellbeing, educational outcomes, and attrition. Eighty-four studies were included.Results: Promising effects were found for indicated and selective interventions to treat anxiety disorders, depression and eating disorders. PTSD and self-harm data was limited, and did not demonstrate significant effects. Relatively few trials adapted intervention delivery to student-specific concerns, and overall adapted interventions showed no benefit over non-adapted interventions. There was some suggestion that adaptions based on empirical evidence and provision of additional sessions, and transdiagnostic models may yield some benefits.Limitations: The review is limited by the often poor quality of the literature and exclusion of non-published data.Conclusions: Interventions for students show benefit though uncertainty remains around how best to optimise treatment delivery and content for students. Additional research into content targeting specific underlying mechanisms of problems and transdiagnostic approaches to provision could be promising avenues for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Depressed patients reporting severely stressful life events had worse prognoses. • Reporting three or more events was associated with considerably worse outcomes. • This held in patients with long durations and those in a first depressive episode. • Effects were attenuated by variables that might have been affected by the events. • Clinicians should routinely ask patients about life events and assess their impact. To investigate associations between major life events and prognosis independent of treatment type: (1) after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors and socio-demographics; (2) amongst patients with depressive episodes at least six-months long; and (3) patients with a first life-time depressive episode. Six RCTs of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care met eligibility criteria, individual patient data (IPD) were collated from all six (n = 2858). Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of life events, demographics and clinical prognostic factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted. Reporting any major life events was associated with poorer prognosis regardless of treatment type. Controlling for baseline clinical factors, socio-demographics and social support resulted in minimal residual evidence of associations between life events and treatment prognosis. However, removing factors that might mediate the relationships between life events and outcomes reporting: arguments/disputes, problem debt, violent crime, losing one's job, and three or more life events were associated with considerably worse prognoses (percentage difference in 3–4 months depressive symptoms compared to no reported life events =30.3%(95%CI: 18.4–43.3)). Assessing for clinical prognostic factors, social support, and socio-demographics is likely to be more informative for prognosis than assessing self-reported recent major life events. However, clinicians might find it useful to ask about such events, and if they are still affecting the patient, consider interventions to tackle problems related to those events (e.g. employment support, mediation, or debt advice). Further investigations of the efficacy of such interventions will be important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate associations between major life events and prognosis independent of treatment type: (1) after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors and socio-demographics; (2) amongst patients with depressive episodes at least six-months long; and (3) patients with a first life-time depressive episode.Methods: Six RCTs of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care met eligibility criteria, individual patient data (IPD) were collated from all six (n = 2858). Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of life events, demographics and clinical prognostic factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted.Results: Reporting any major life events was associated with poorer prognosis regardless of treatment type. Controlling for baseline clinical factors, socio-demographics and social support resulted in minimal residual evidence of associations between life events and treatment prognosis. However, removing factors that might mediate the relationships between life events and outcomes reporting: arguments/disputes, problem debt, violent crime, losing one's job, and three or more life events were associated with considerably worse prognoses (percentage difference in 3-4 months depressive symptoms compared to no reported life events =30.3%(95%CI: 18.4-43.3)).Conclusions: Assessing for clinical prognostic factors, social support, and socio-demographics is likely to be more informative for prognosis than assessing self-reported recent major life events. However, clinicians might find it useful to ask about such events, and if they are still affecting the patient, consider interventions to tackle problems related to those events (e.g. employment support, mediation, or debt advice). Further investigations of the efficacy of such interventions will be important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]