Search

Background: Depression and anxiety disorders are common, and treatment often includes psychological interventions. Digital health interventions, delivered through technologies such as web-based programs and mobile apps, are increasingly used in mental health treatment. Acceptability, the extent to which an intervention is viewed positively, has been identified as contributing to patient adherence and engagement with digital health interventions. Acceptability, therefore, impacts the benefit derived from using digital health interventions in treatment. Understanding the acceptability of digital mental health interventions among patients with depression or anxiety disorders is essential to maximize the effectiveness of their treatment., Objective: This review investigated the acceptability of technology-based interventions among patients with depression or anxiety disorders., Methods: A systematic review was performed based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid in May 2022. Studies were included if they evaluated digital interventions for the treatment of depression or anxiety disorders and investigated their acceptability among adult patients. Studies were excluded if they targeted only specific populations (eg, those with specific physical health conditions), investigated acceptability in healthy individuals or patients under the age of 18 years, involved no direct interaction between patients and technologies, used technology only as a platform for traditional care (eg, videoconferencing), had patients using technologies only in clinical or laboratory settings, or involved virtual reality technologies. Acceptability outcome data were narratively synthesized by the direction of acceptability using vote counting. Included studies were evaluated using levels of evidence from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The risk of bias was assessed using a tool designed for this review and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)., Results: A total of 143 articles met the inclusion criteria, comprising 67 (47%) articles on interventions for depression, 65 (45%) articles on interventions for anxiety disorders, and 11 (8%) articles on interventions for both. Overall, 90 (63%) were randomized controlled trials, 50 (35%) were other quantitative studies, and 3 (2%) were qualitative studies. Interventions used web-based programs, mobile apps, and computer programs. Cognitive behavioral therapy was the basis of 71% (102/143) of the interventions. Digital mental health interventions were generally acceptable among patients with depression or anxiety disorders, with 88% (126/143) indicating positive acceptability, 8% (11/143) mixed results, and 4% (6/143) insufficient information to categorize the direction of acceptability. The available research evidence was of moderate quality., Conclusions: Digital mental health interventions seem to be acceptable to patients with depression or anxiety disorders. Consistent use of validated measures for acceptability would enhance the quality of evidence. Careful design of acceptability as an evaluation outcome can further improve the quality of evidence and reduce the risk of bias., Trial Registration: Open Science Framework Y7MJ4; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SPR8M., (©Carrie K Y Lau, Anthony Saad, Bettina Camara, Dia Rahman, Blanca Bolea-Alamanac. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 28.10.2024.)

Background: Technological interventions used to treat illnesses and promote health are grouped under the umbrella term of digital therapeutics. The use of digital therapeutics is becoming increasingly common in mental health. Although many technologies are currently being implemented, research supporting their usability, efficacy, and risk requires further examination, especially for those interventions that can be used without support., Objective: This review aims to identify the evidence-based, self-directed, technology-based methods of care that can be used in adult patients after they are discharged from mental health services. The interventions reviewed are automated with no human input required (either at the patient's or at the technology's end), so the patients can implement them without any support., Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) guidelines in 3 databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and OVID. The inclusion criteria were self-directed, automated, and technology-based interventions related to mental health, primarily for adults, having a solid evaluation process. The interventions had to be self-directed, in that the participants could use the technology without any external guidance., Results: We identified 36 papers that met the inclusion criteria: 26 randomized controlled trials, 9 nonrandomized controlled trial quantitative studies, and 1 qualitative study. The technologies used included websites, automated text messaging, phone apps, videos, computer software, and integrated voice response. There were 22 studies focused on internet-based cognitive behavioral therapies as a therapeutic paradigm compared with the waitlist, web-based human-delivered therapy, and other interventions. Among these studies, 14 used paradigms other than the internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy. Of the 8 studies comparing guided and unguided digital care, 3 showed no differences, 3 favored guided interventions, and 2 favored unguided interventions. The research also showed that dropout rates were as high as 80%, citing potential problems with the acceptability of the suggested technologies., Conclusions: There is limited research on the efficacy and suitability of self-directed technology-based care options for mental health. Digital technologies have the potential to bridge the gap between ambulatory care and independent living. However, these interventions may need to be developed collaboratively with the users to encourage their acceptability and to avoid high dropout rates., (©Anthony Saad, Deanna Bruno, Bettina Camara, Josephine D’Agostino, Blanca Bolea-Alamanac. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 26.11.2021.)

Background Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is among the most common psychiatric disorders of childhood that often persists into adulthood and old age. Yet ADHD is currently underdiagnosed and undertreated in many European countries, leading to chronicity of symptoms and impairment, due to lack of, or ineffective treatment, and higher costs of illness. Methods The European Network Adult ADHD and the Section for Neurodevelopmental Disorders Across the Lifespan (NDAL) of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA), aim to increase awareness and knowledge of adult ADHD in and outside Europe. This Updated European Consensus Statement aims to support clinicians with research evidence and clinical experience from 63 experts of European and other countries in which ADHD in adults is recognized and treated. Results Besides reviewing the latest research on prevalence, persistence, genetics and neurobiology of ADHD, three major questions are addressed: (1) What is the clinical picture of ADHD in adults? (2) How should ADHD be properly diagnosed in adults? (3) How should adult ADHDbe effectively treated? Conclusions ADHD often presents as a lifelong impairing condition. The stigma surrounding ADHD, mainly due to lack of knowledge, increases the suffering of patients. Education on the lifespan perspective, diagnostic assessment, and treatment of ADHD must increase for students of general and mental health, and for psychiatry professionals. Instruments for screening and diagnosis of ADHD in adults are available, as are effective evidence-based treatments for ADHD and its negative outcomes. More research is needed on gender differences, and in older adults with ADHD., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

There is increasing recognition that women have a higher prevalence of certain psychiatric illnesses, and a differential treatment response and course of illness compared to men. Additionally, clinicians deal with a number of disorders like premenstrual syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and postpartum depression, which affect women specifically and for which treatment and biological pathways are still unclear. In this article we highlight recent research which suggests that different biological mechanisms may underlie sex differences in responsiveness to stress. Sex differences are evident at the receptor level; where the corticotropin-releasing factor receptor shows differential coupling to adaptor proteins in males and females. The neuropeptide oxytocin also shows sex-specific effects in a range of social behaviors. It may act as a biomarker in post-traumatic stress disorder where sex differences are evident. Studies in women using hormonal contraception show that some of these oxytocin-mediated effects are likely influenced by sex hormones. In female rats rapid changes in circulating progesterone levels are associated with exaggerated behavioral responses to mild stress and blunted responses to benzodiazepines that could be prevented by acute treatment with low-dose fluoxetine. Perceived barriers in research on women have hindered progress. The development of a sex-specific psychopharmacology as a basis for translating this type of research into clinical practice is vital to improve treatment outcomes for women.

Objective: Biomarkers are defined as anatomical, biochemical or physiological traits that are specific to certain disorders or syndromes. The objective of this paper is to summarise the current knowledge of biomarkers for anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)., Methods: Findings in biomarker research were reviewed by a task force of international experts in the field, consisting of members of the World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry Task Force on Biological Markers and of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Anxiety Disorders Research Network., Results: The present article (Part II) summarises findings on potential biomarkers in neurochemistry (neurotransmitters such as serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine or GABA, neuropeptides such as cholecystokinin, neurokinins, atrial natriuretic peptide, or oxytocin, the HPA axis, neurotrophic factors such as NGF and BDNF, immunology and CO 2 hypersensitivity), neurophysiology (EEG, heart rate variability) and neurocognition. The accompanying paper (Part I) focuses on neuroimaging and genetics., Conclusions: Although at present, none of the putative biomarkers is sufficient and specific as a diagnostic tool, an abundance of high quality research has accumulated that should improve our understanding of the neurobiological causes of anxiety disorders, OCD and PTSD.