Search

Background: Lifestyle medicine (LM) is gaining increasing attention as a treatment option for anxiety, but the current state of evidence has not yet been systematically examined.Methods: Six electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to February 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of multicomponent LM interventions on anxiety symptoms with either care-as-usual, waitlist, no intervention, or attention control group on anxiety symptoms were identified.Results: A total of 53 RCTs with 18,894 participants were included for qualitative synthesis, in which 45 RCTs with data available were included for meta-analysis. Multicomponent LM intervention was significantly more effective than the control groups in reducing anxiety symptoms at immediate posttreatment (d = 0.19, p < .001) and at short-term follow-up (d = 0.29, p < .001). However, no significant difference at medium-term was found (p = .14), whereas more studies are needed to study the long-term effects. The subgroup analyses suggested that baseline anxiety symptoms was a significant moderator, suggesting that those with moderate level of baseline anxiety symptoms appeared to have greater improvements (d = 0.66, p < .05).Limitations: Minimal anxiety symptoms at baseline contributed to the floor effect and influenced the degree of improvement. The included RCTs had a high risk of bias in general with potential publication bias detected.Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis provided support for the positive effects of multicomponent LM interventions for anxiety symptoms. Future research is needed to determine the long-term effects of multicimponent LM and the optimal baseline anxiety severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a prevalent disorder with a peak rate of onset in young adulthood from 18 to 25 years. To date, no review has systematically assessed the effectiveness of programs that aim to reduce depressive symptoms or diagnosis of depression in young adults.Method: A systematic search was performed in Cochrane, PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of the randomized controlled studies that compared an intervention for young adults (aged 18-25) without a diagnosis or history of depression and a control condition. Comparisons between intervention and control group outcomes were carried out at the post-intervention time point. We also compared intervention and control group outcomes at later follow-up time points where data were available.Results: Twenty-six randomized controlled trials among 2865 young adults were included in the analysis. The pooled effect size of the interventions versus control at post-intervention was g = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.28-0.47, NNT = 9) and heterogeneity was moderate I2 = 36 (95% CI: 11-64). There were no significant effects in terms of the type of delivery, focus of study, type of control, or type of support within the interventions.Limitations: The authors were unable to assess the effects of interventions on the onset of depression as none of the included studies measured incidence. The risk of bias was high in most studies (81%). Only one study included a follow-up of more than a year. Demographic factors were inconsistently reported in the included articles.Conclusion: While it was not possible to investigate the effects of interventions on depression incidence, some evidence was found for the effectiveness of preventative interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in young adults. Future research should address limitations of the current evidence base to allow stronger conclusions to be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]