Search

PURPOSE Most patients with depression are treated by general practitioners, and most of those patients prefer psychotherapy over pharmacotherapy. No network meta-analyses have examined the effects of psychotherapy compared with pharmacotherapy, combined treatment, care as usual, and other control conditions among patients in primary care. METHODS We conducted systematic searches of bibliographic databases to identify randomized trials comparing psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy, combined treatment, care as usual, waitlist, and pill placebo. The main outcome was treatment response (50% improvement of depressive symptoms from baseline to end point). RESULTS A total of 58 studies with 9,301 patients were included. Both psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were significantly more effective than care as usual (relative risk [RR] for response = 1.60; 95% CI, 1.40-1.83 and RR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.35-2.03, respectively) and waitlist (RR = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.57-3.51 and RR = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.57-3.74, respectively) control groups. We found no significant differences between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22). The effects were significantly greater for combined treatment compared with psychotherapy alone (RR = 1.35; 95% CI, 1.00-1.81). The difference between combined treatment and pharmacotherapy became significant when limited to studies with low risk of bias and studies limited to cognitive behavior therapy. CONCLUSIONS Psychotherapy is likely effective for the treatment of depression when compared with care as usual or waitlist, with effects comparable to those of pharmacotherapy. Combined treatment might be better than either psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy alone. Key words: depression; major depression; primary care; psychotherapy; cognitive behavior therapy; network meta-analysis, INTRODUCTION Hundreds of randomized trials have examined the effects of pharmacologic and psychologic treatments for depression. (1,2) However, the majority of depressed patients are treated in primary care, and relatively [...]

Aim: The current research was conducted in the context of an ongoing reform of mental health services in the Republic of Moldova since 2014, where efforts have been devoted to creating community-based mental health services. This article presents a snapshot of the needs of mental health service users in the Republic of Moldova and helps to understand how and with which services their needs can be addressed. Methods: This cross-sectional study compared the levels of needs (CANSAS scale), quality of life (EQ-5D 3L), mental health status (MINI for psychotic disorders) and functioning (WHO-DAS) among mental health service users in the psychiatric hospital in Chisinau, Moldova. All service users resided in districts where community mental health services were being developed. Correlations between quality of life, functioning and unmet need were explored. Results: Of 83 participants, one third had a psychotic or a mood disorder. On average, participants reported needs in 9.41 domains (SD = 4.41), of which 4.29 were unmet (SD = 3.63). Most unmet needs related to intimacy and relation to others. The level of functioning and quality of life were reported. We found strong, negative associations between the number of unmet needs and level of functioning, as well as the quality of life. We also found that higher functioning levels were positively associated with higher quality of life. Conclusion: There were a high number of unmet needs among this inpatient population, particularly social needs and service-related needs. A continuum of inpatient and outpatient care and individual treatment plans can help address the different needs of different patients. Individual treatment plans for patients and the choice of the appropriate treatment for patients could be guided by an assessment of service users' (unmet) needs of care and level of functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychiatric rehabilitation (PR) can improve functioning in people with severe mental illness (SMI), but outcomes are still suboptimal. Cognitive impairments have severe implications for functioning and might reduce the effects of PR. It has been demonstrated that performance in cognitive tests can be improved by cognitive remediation (CR). However, there is no consistent evidence that CR as a stand-alone intervention leads to improvements in real-life functioning. The present study investigated whether a combination of PR and CR enhances the effect of a stand-alone PR or CR intervention on separate domains of functioning. Method: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of PR combined with CR in people with SMI was conducted, reporting on functioning outcomes. A multivariate meta-regression analysis was carried out to evaluate moderator effects. Results: The meta-analysis included 23 studies with 1819 patients. Enhancing PR with CR had significant beneficial effects on vocational outcomes (e.g. employment rate: SMD = 0.41), and social skills (SMD = 0.24). No significant effects were found on relationships and outcomes of community functioning. Effects on vocational outcomes were moderated by years of education, intensity of the intervention, type of CR approach and integration of treatment goals for PR and CR. Type of PR was no significant moderator. Conclusions: Augmenting PR by adding cognitive training can improve vocational and social functioning in patients with SMI more than a stand-alone PR intervention. First indications exist that a synergetic mechanism also works the other way around, with beneficial effects of the combined intervention compared with a stand-alone CR intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]