Search

Objective: Although evidence supports the effectiveness of psychological interventions for prevention of anxiety, little is known about their cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of health-economic evaluations of psychological interventions for anxiety prevention. Methods: PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment, and OpenGrey databases were searched electronically on December 23, 2022. Included studies focused on economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions to prevent anxiety. Study data were extracted, and the quality of the selected studies was assessed by using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: All included studies (N=5) had economic evaluations that were considered to be of good quality. In two studies, the interventions showed favorable cost-effectiveness compared with usual care groups. In one study, the intervention was not cost-effective. Findings from another study cast doubt on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in the remaining study could not be established. Conclusions: Although the findings suggest some preliminary evidence of cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for preventing anxiety, they were limited by the small number of included studies. Additional research on the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for anxiety in different countries and populations is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evidence available on the association between social support and prevention of depression has been basically obtained from observational studies. Aim: We evaluated the effectiveness of social support-based interventions for the prevention of depression in people without clinical depression. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) of randomized controlled trials (RCT), which were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WOS, PsycINFO, OpenGrey and other sources from the inception dates to June 8, 2022. We selected RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of social support-based interventions as compared to controls, included subjects without baseline clinical depression, and measured as results a reduction in depressive symptoms and/or the incidence of new cases of depression. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated from random effects models. Results: Nine RCTs involving 927 patients from North America, Asia and Europe were included. The pooled SMD was −0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.82 to −0.04; p =.031]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results. Heterogeneity was substantial [ I 2 = 80% (95% CI: 64% to 89%)]. A meta-regression model that included usual care as comparator and the continent (Europe), explained 53% of heterogeneity. Eight RCTs had a moderate overall risk of bias and one had a high risk of bias. Follow-up was ⩾1 year in only three RCTs. There was no statistical evidence of publication bias. The quality of evidence, as measured on GRADE guidelines, was low. Conclusion: Social support-based interventions had a small preventive effect on depression. Longer RCTs with a low risk of bias are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In most trials and systematic reviews that evaluate exercise-based interventions in reducing depressive symptoms, it is difficult to separate treatment from prevention.Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in people without clinical depression.Method: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, WOS, SPORTDiscus, CENTRAL, OpenGrey and other sources up to 25 May 2020. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared exclusively exercise-based interventions with control groups, enrolling participants without clinical depression, as measured using validated instruments, and whose outcome was reduction of depressive symptoms and/or incidence of new cases of people with depression. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effect models (registration at PROSPERO: CRD42017055726).Results: A total of 14 RCTs (18 comparisons) evaluated 1737 adults without clinical depression from eight countries and four continents. The pooled SMD was -0.34 (95% CI -0.51 to -0.17; P < 0.001) and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this result. We found no statistical evidence of publication bias and heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 54%; 95% CI 22-73%). Only two RCTs had an overall low risk of bias and three had long-term follow-up. Multivariate meta-regression found that a larger sample size, country (Asia) and selective prevention (i.e. people exposed to risk factors for depression) were associated with lower effectiveness, although only sample size remained significant when adjustment for multiple tests was considered. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool, the quality of evidence was low.Conclusions: Exercise-based interventions have a small effect on the reduction of depressive symptoms in people without clinical depression. It could be an alternative to or complement psychological programmes, although further higher-quality trials with larger samples and long-term follow-up are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the predictD-intervention, GPs used a personalised biopsychosocial programme to prevent depression. This reduced the incidence of major depression by 21.0%, although the results were not statistically significant.Aim: To determine whether the predictD-intervention is effective at preventing anxiety in primary care patients without depression or anxiety.Design and Setting: Secondary study of a cluster randomised trial with practices randomly assigned to either the predictD-intervention or usual care. This study was conducted in seven Spanish cities from October 2010 to July 2012.Method: In each city, 10 practices and two GPs per practice, as well as four to six patients every recruiting day, were randomly selected until there were 26-27 eligible patients for each GP. The endpoint was cumulative incidence of anxiety as measured by the PRIME-MD screening tool over 18 months.Results: A total of 3326 patients without depression and 140 GPs from 70 practices consented and were eligible to participate; 328 of these patients were removed because they had an anxiety syndrome at baseline. Of the 2998 valid patients, 2597 (86.6%) were evaluated at the end of the study. At 18 months, 10.4% (95% CI = 8.7% to 12.1%) of the patients in the predictD-intervention group developed anxiety compared with 13.1% (95% CI = 11.4% to 14.8%) in the usual-care group (absolute difference = -2.7% [95% CI = -5.1% to -0.3%]; P = 0.029).Conclusion: A personalised intervention delivered by GPs for the prevention of depression provided a modest but statistically significant reduction in the incidence of anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Psychological and educational interventions for the prevention of depression have a small-to-moderate effect. However, little is known about their effectiveness in the workplace. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Methods We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CIS-DOC and Open Grey for RCT. Search was supplemented with manual searches of reference lists of relevant meta-analyses and trials. We included RCT that assessed either the incidence of depression or the reduction of depressive symptoms, which excluded participants with baseline depression. Measurements were required to have been made using validated instruments and participants recruited in the workplace. Independent evaluators selected studies, evaluated risk bias (Cochrane Collaboration's tool) and extracted from RCT. The combined OR was estimated using the fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity was measured by I2 and Cochrane's Q. Results Of the 1963 abstracts reviewed, 69 were selected for review in fulltext. Only three RCT met our inclusion criteria, representing 1246 workers from three different countries and continents. The combined odds ratio was 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.60, P=0.002]; I2=0% and Q=0.389 (P=0.823). The risk of bias was low in one RCT and moderate and high in the other two, respectively. Conclusion Psychological or educational interventions in the workplace may prevent depression, although the quality of evidence was low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care.Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months.Results: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results.Conclusions: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Not enough is known about universal prevention of depression in adults.Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to prevent major depression.Design: Multicenter, cluster randomized trial with sites randomly assigned to usual care or an intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01151982).Setting: 10 primary care centers in each of 7 cities in Spain.Participants: Two primary care physicians (PCPs) and 5236 nondepressed adult patients were randomly sampled from each center; 3326 patients consented and were eligible to participate.Intervention: For each patient, PCPs communicated individual risk for depression and personal predictors of risk and developed a psychosocial program tailored to prevent depression.Measurements: New cases of major depression, assessed every 6 months for 18 months.Results: At 18 months, 7.39% of patients in the intervention group (95% CI, 5.85% to 8.95%) developed major depression compared with 9.40% in the control (usual care) group (CI, 7.89% to 10.92%) (absolute difference, -2.01 percentage points [CI, -4.18 to 0.16 percentage points]; P = 0.070). Depression incidence was lower in the intervention centers in 5 cities and similar between intervention and control centers in 2 cities.Limitation: Potential self-selection bias due to nonconsenting patients.Conclusion: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk for depression implemented by PCPs provided a modest but nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of major depression. Additional study of this approach may be warranted.Primary Funding Source: Institute of Health Carlos III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 'predictD algorithm' provides an estimate of the level and profile of risk of the onset of major depression in primary care attendees. This gives us the opportunity to develop interventions to prevent depression in a personalized way. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a new intervention, personalized and implemented by family physicians (FPs), to prevent the onset of episodes of major depression. Methods/Design: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), with cluster assignment by health center and two parallel arms. Two interventions will be applied by FPs, usual care versus the new intervention predictD-CCRT. The latter has four components: a training workshop for FPs; communicating the level and profile of risk of depression; building up a tailored bio-psycho-family-social intervention by FPs to prevent depression; offering a booklet to prevent depression; and activating and empowering patients. We will recruit a systematic random sample of 3286 non-depressed adult patients (1643 in each trial arm), nested in 140 FPs and 70 health centers from7 Spanish cities. All patients will be evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The level and profile of risk of depression will be communicated to patients by the FPs in the intervention practices at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of major depression (measured by CIDI each 6 months) over 18 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (SF-12 and EuroQol), and measurements of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The inferences will be made at patient level. We shall undertake an intention-to-treat effectiveness analysis and will handle missing data using multiple imputations. We will perform multi-level logistic regressions and will adjust for the probability of the onset of major depression at 12 months measured at baseline as well as for unbalanced variables if appropriate. The economic evaluation will be approached from two perspectives, societal and health system. Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT of universal primary prevention for depression in adults and the first to test a personalized intervention implemented by FPs. We discuss possible biases as well as other limitatio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychological interventions have been proven to be effective to prevent depression, however, little is known on the cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for the prevention of depression in various populations. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Econlit, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, NHS Health Technology Assessment and OpenGrey up to January 2021. Only health-economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions to prevent depression were included. Independent evaluators selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Twelve trial-based economic evaluations including 5929 participants from six different countries met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of most economic evaluations was considered good, but some studies have some risk of bias. Setting the willingness-to-pay upper limit to US$40,000 (2018 prices) for gaining one quality adjusted life year (QALY), eight psychological preventive interventions were likely to be cost-effective compared to care as usual. The likelihood of preventive psychological interventions being more cost-effective than care as usual looks promising, but more economic evaluations are needed to bridge the many gaps that remain in the evidence-base. As this systematic review is based on published data, approval from the local ethics committee was not required. • Twelve trial-based health-economic evaluations to prevent depression are presented • Nine of these 12 studies were CUAs of which 6 were cost-effective • The remaining 3 studies were CEAs of which 2 were cost-effective • Psychological interventions have the potential to be cost-effective • More economic evaluations should be conducted for priority setting [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of preventive interventions for anxiety disorders. We aim to test the effectiveness of multiple health behavior change (MHBC) interventions in the reduction of symptoms of anxiety in the adult population. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted by searching the most relevant databases and registry platforms in the area. Reference lists of included articles and relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of MHBC interventions that examined anxiety or depression as outcomes were also manually searched. To identify RCTs that evaluated preventive interventions, we excluded studies in which the target population included only patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorders. To pool results, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using the random effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed. Forty-six RCTs were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 34 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Thirty RCTs were focused on promoting healthy diet and physical activity, whereas the other 16 studies also focused on smoking cessation. The pooled SMD was small (−0.183; 95% CI -0.276 to −0.091) but significant (p < 0.001). The effect became non-significant when only studies with a low risk of bias were included. There was substantial and significant heterogeneity between the studies. There is currently insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of MHBC interventions to reduce symptoms of anxiety in the adult population. • Extensive search following PRISMA statement, which included 47 RCTs in the SR and 35 RCTs in the MA. • Most of the intervention targeted the promotion of physical activity and healthy diet. • Quality of evidence was low and there was high heterogeneity between studies. • No firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MHBC interventions in reducing symptoms of anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the effectiveness of psychological and/or educational interventions to prevent the onset of episodes of depression. Methods Systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA). We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OpenGrey, and PROSPERO from their inception until February 2014. Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility criteria of all SR/MA, abstracted data, and determined bias risk (AMSTAR). Results Twelve SR/MA (156 non-repeated trials and 56,158 participants) were included. Of these, 142 (91%) were randomized-controlled, 13 (8.3%) controlled trials, and 1 (0.6%) had no control group. Five SR/MA focused on children and adolescents, four on specific populations (women after childbirth, of low socioeconomic status, or unfavorable circumstances; patients with severe traumatic physical injuries or stroke) and three addressed the general population. Nine (75%) SR/MA concluded that interventions to prevent depression were effective. Of the 156 trials, 137 (87.8%) reported some kind of effect size calculation. Effect sizes were small in 45 (32.8%), medium in 26 (19.1%), and large in 25 (18.2%) trials; 41 (29.9%) trials were not effective. Of the 141 trials for which follow-up periods were available, only 34 (24.1%) exceeded 12 months. Conclusion Psychological and/or educational interventions to prevent onset of episodes of depression were effective, although most had small or medium effect sizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although evidence exists for the efficacy of interventions to prevent depression, little is known about its prevention through online interventions. We aim to assess the effectiveness of online psychological and psychoeducational interventions to prevent depression in heterogeneous populations. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted based on literature searches in eight electronic data bases and other sources from inception to 22 July 2019. Of the 4181 abstracts reviewed, 501 were selected for full-text review, and 21 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, representing 10,134 participants from 11 countries and four continents. The pooled SMD was −0·26 (95%CI: −0·36 to −0·16; p < 0.001) and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this result. We did not find publication bias but there was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 72%; 95%CI, 57% to 82%). A meta-regression including three variables explained 81% of the heterogeneity. Indicated prevention and interactive website delivery were statistically associated with higher effectiveness, and no association was observed with risk of bias. Online psychological and psychoeducational interventions have a small effect in reducing depressive symptoms in non-depressed and varied populations, and the quality of evidence is moderate. Given that these types of interventions are very accessible and can be applied on a wide scale, they should be further developed and implemented. Registration details : Registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42014014804. • This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of online psychological/psychoeducational interventions to prevent depression. • 21 RCTs were identified including over 10000 individuals from 11 countries and 4 continents. • These interventions have a small effect in preventing depression and the quality of evidence is moderate. • Since these programs are very scalable, they should be further developed and implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although efforts have been undertaken to determine how psychological interventions exert their effects, research on mediators and mechanisms of change remains limited, especially in the field of prevention. We aimed to assess available evidence on mediators of psychological and psychoeducational interventions for the prevention of depression and anxiety in varied populations. A systematic review using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, OpenGrey, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility criteria of all articles, extracted data, determined the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, and the requirements for mediators. The outcomes were mediators of the incidence of depression or anxiety and/or the reduction of symptoms of depression or anxiety. We identified 28 nested mediator studies within randomized controlled trials involving 7442 participants. Potential cognitive, behavioral, emotional and interpersonal mediators were evaluated in different psychological and psychoeducational interventions to prevent depression and anxiety. The effects were mediated mainly by cognitive variables, which were the most commonly assessed factors. For depression, the mediator with the strongest empirical support was negative thinking in adults. Cognitive change is an important mediator in preventive psychological and psychoeducational interventions for both anxiety and depression. Registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42018092393. • Little is known about the mediators of interventions to prevent depression and anxiety. • Twenty-eight mediator studies nested within randomized control trials were included. • Potential cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and interpersonal mediators were evaluated. • Moderate evidence was found for cognitive mediators in depression and anxiety. • Moderate evidence was found for negative thinking in depression for adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]