Search

Background: Literature points towards the potential benefits of the application of Eye Movement and Desensitization Processing (EMDR)-therapy for patients in the medical setting, with cancer and pain being among the domains it is applied to. The field of applying EMDR-therapy for patients treated in the medical setting has evolved to such an extent that it may be challenging to get a comprehensive overview. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in patients treated in the medical setting. Methods: We performed a literature search following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if the effectiveness of EMDR-therapy was assessed in adult patients treated in a medical setting. Excluded were patients exclusively suffering from a mental health disorder, without somatic comorbidity. A risk of bias analysis was performed. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325238). Results: Eighty-seven studies, of which 26 (pilot)-RCTs were included and categorized in 14 medical domains. Additionally, three studies focusing on persistent physical complaints were included. Most evidence exists for its application in the fields of oncology, pain, and neurology. The overall appraisal of these studies showed at least moderate to high risks of bias. EMDR demonstrated effectiveness in reducing symptoms in 85 out of 87 studies. Notably, the occurrence of adverse events was rarely mentioned. Conclusions: Overall, outcomes seem to show beneficial effects of EMDR on reducing psychological and physical symptoms in patients treated in a medical setting. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, effect sizes could not be pooled. Due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution and further controlled high-quality research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: After a traumatic incident in the workplace organisations want to provide support for their employees to prevent PTSD. However, what is safe and effective to offer has not yet been established, despite many organisations offering some form of intervention after a traumatic event. Objective: To systematically review the evidence for post-incident psychosocial interventions offered within one month of a workplace trauma, and to compare the content, effectiveness and acceptability of these interventions. Given the lack of a yet clearly established evidence-base in this field, we sought to examine both published empirical research as well as guidelines published by expert groups working with staff in high-risk roles. Methods: We conducted systematic searches for empirical research across bibliographic databases and searched online for clinical practice guidelines to April 2023. We were also referred to potentially relevant literature by experts in workplace trauma. Both empirical research and clinical guidelines were appraised for their quality. Results: A total of 80 research studies and 11 clinical practice guidelines were included in the review. Interventions included Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD), Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM), unspecified Debriefing, Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), Psychological First Aid (PFA), EMDR, CBT and group counselling. Most research and guidance were of poor quality. The findings of this review do not demonstrate any harm caused by CISD, CISM, PFA, TRiM, EMDR, group counselling or CBT interventions when delivered in a workplace setting. However, they do not conclusively demonstrate benefits of these interventions nor do they establish superiority of any specific intervention. Generic debriefing was associated with some negative outcomes. Current clinical guidelines were inconsistent with the current research evidence base. Nevertheless, interventions were generally valued by workers. Conclusions: Better quality research and guidance is urgently needed, including more detailed exploration of the specific aspects of delivery of post-incident interventions. Organisations often seek to provide some form of psychosocial intervention after a traumatic event in the workplace. Previous reviews have contraindicated particular forms of 'debriefing', however, the evidence for post-incident psychosocial interventions in the workplace has not previously been systematically reviewed. Research evidence was generally of poor quality with limited evidence of effectiveness and clinical guidelines were inconsistent with the evidence. Nevertheless, research did not demonstrate harm from most established interventions and support was valued by workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) has been applied to different psychiatric conditions beyond post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and an increasing number of studies have evaluated its effect on depression. To date, no quantitative synthesis of the efficacy of EMDR on depression has been conducted. Objective: To meta-analytically review the studies on EMDR for depression as the primary target for treatment. Method: Studies with a controlled design evaluating the effect of EMDR on depression were searched on six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane database, and Francine Shapiro Library) and then selected by two independent reviewers. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Results: Eleven studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving 373 participants. The overall effect size of EMDR for depressive symptoms is large (n = 9, Hedges' g = – 1.07; 95%CI [–1.66; – 0.48]), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 84%), and corresponds to a 'number needed to treat' of 1.8. At follow-up (range 3–6 months), the effect remains significant but moderate (n = 3, Hedges' g = – 0.62; 95%CI [–0.97; – 0.28]; I2 = 0%). The effect of EMDR compared with active controls is also moderate (n = 7, g = – 0.68; 95%CI [–0.92; – 0.43]; I2 = 0%). No publication bias was found, although the results are limited by the small number and poor methodological quality of the included studies. Conclusions: Review findings suggest that EMDR may be considered an effective treatment for improving symptoms of depression, with effects comparable to other active treatments. However, findings need to be interpreted in light of the limited number of the studies and their quality. Further research is required to understand the longer-term of effects EMDR in treating depression and preventing depression relapse. Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018090086). This review summarizes the current evidence on the effects of EMDR for depression. Findings show that one-third of people with depression could benefit from EMDR. EMDR could be considered as an alternative to first-line treatments for depression, pending further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychological therapies are the recommended first-line treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previous systematic reviews have grouped theoretically similar interventions to determine differences between broadly distinct approaches. Consequently, we know little regarding the relative efficacy of the specific manualized therapies commonly applied to the treatment of PTSD. Objective: To determine the effect sizes of manualized therapies for PTSD. Methods: We undertook a systematic review following Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. A pre-determined definition of clinical importance was applied to the results and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results: 114 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of 8171 participants were included. There was robust evidence that the therapies broadly defined as CBT with a trauma focus (CBT-T), as well as Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR), had a clinically important effect. The manualized CBT-Ts with the strongest evidence of effect were Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT); Cognitive Therapy (CT); and Prolonged Exposure (PE). There was also some evidence supporting CBT without a trauma focus; group CBT with a trauma focus; guided internet-based CBT; and Present Centred Therapy (PCT). There was emerging evidence for a number of other therapies. Conclusions: A recent increase in RCTs of psychological therapies for PTSD, results in a more confident recommendation of CBT-T and EMDR as the first-line treatments. Among the CBT-Ts considered by the review CPT, CT and PE should be the treatments of choice. The findings should guide evidence informed shared decision-making between patient and clinician. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychosis is a public health concern. There is increasing evidence suggesting trauma can play a pivotal role in the development and maintenance of psychosis. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective treatment for trauma and could be a vital addition to the treatment of psychosis. Objective: To explore the evidence for EMDR as a treatment for psychosis, focussing on the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of this intervention for this population. Methods: Four databases (Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE PsychINFO), and the Francine Shapiro Library were systematically searched, along with grey literature and reference lists of relevant papers. No date limits were applied as this is an area of emerging evidence. Studies were screened for eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The included studies were quality assessed and data was extracted from the individual studies, and synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria (1 RCT, 2 Pilot studies, 2 Case series and 1 Case report). Across the studies EMDR was associated with reductions in delusional and negative symptoms, mental health service and medication use. Evidence for reductions in auditory hallucinations and paranoid thinking was mixed. No adverse events were reported, although initial increases in psychotic symptoms were observed in two studies. Average dropout rates across the studies were comparable to other trauma-focused treatments for PTSD. The acceptability of EMDR was not adequately measured or reported. Conclusion: EMDR appears a safe and feasible intervention for people with psychosis. The evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention for this population. Larger confirmative trials are required to form more robust conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the established efficacy of psychological therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) there has been little systematic exploration of dropout rates. Objective: To ascertain rates of dropout across different modalities of psychological therapy for PTSD and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Method: A systematic review of dropout rates from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies was conducted. The pooled rate of dropout from psychological therapies was estimated and reasons for heterogeneity explored using meta-regression. Results:: The pooled rate of dropout from RCTs of psychological therapies for PTSD was 16% (95% CI 14–18%). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity across studies. We found evidence that psychological therapies with a trauma-focus were significantly associated with greater dropout. There was no evidence of greater dropout from therapies delivered in a group format; from studies that recruited participants from clinical services rather than via advertisements; that included only military personnel/veterans; that were limited to participants traumatized by sexual traumas; that included a higher proportion of female participants; or from studies with a lower proportion of participants who were university educated. Conclusions: Dropout rates from recommended psychological therapies for PTSD are high and this appears to be particularly true of interventions with a trauma focus. There is a need to further explore the reasons for dropout and to look at ways of increasing treatment retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]