The prevalence of anxiety in respiratory and sleep diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety is common in those with chronic physical health conditions and can have significant impacts on both quality of life and physical health outcomes. Despite this, there are limited studies comprehensively investigating the prevalence of anxiety in respiratory and sleep medicine settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide insight into the global prevalence of anxiety symptoms/disorders in respiratory and sleep medicine outpatients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Google Scholar databases were searched from database inception to January 23, 2023 for studies assessing the prevalence of anxiety in adult (≥16 years) respiratory and sleep medicine outpatients. Data was screened and extracted independently by two investigators. Anxiety was measured using various self-report questionnaires, structured interviews, and/or patient records. Using CMA software for the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used for pooled estimates, and subgroup analysis was conducted on relevant models using a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: 116 studies were included, featuring 36,340 participants across 40 countries. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 30.3 % (95%CI 27.9-32.9 %, 10,679/36,340). Subgroup analysis found a significant difference across type of condition, with pulmonary tuberculosis the highest at 43.1 % and COVID-19 outpatients the lowest at 23.4 %. No significant difference was found across anxiety types, country or age. Female sex and the use of self-report measures was associated with significantly higher anxiety estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety is a common experience amongst patients in respiratory and sleep medicine outpatient settings. Thus, it is crucial that anxiety identification and management is considered by physicians in the field. REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021282416).

The Essential Network (TEN): Protocol for an Implementation Study of a Digital-First Mental Health Solution for Australian Health Care Workers During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers (HCWs) under severe stress, compounded by barriers to seeking mental health support among HCWs. The Essential Network (TEN) is a blend of digital and person-to-person (blended care) mental health support services for HCWs, funded by the Australian Federal Department of Health as part of their national COVID-19 response strategy. TEN is designed as both a preventative measure and treatment for common mental health problems faced by HCWs. New blended services need to demonstrate improvements in mental health symptoms and test acceptability in their target audience, as well as review implementation strategies to improve engagement. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this implementation study is to design and test an implementation strategy to improve uptake of TEN. The secondary objectives are examining the acceptability of TEN among HCWs, changes in mental health outcomes associated with the use of TEN, and reductions in mental health stigma among HCWs following the use of TEN. METHODS: The implementation study contains 3 components: (1) a consultation study with up to 39 stakeholders or researchers with implementation experience to design an implementation strategy, (1) a longitudinal observational study of at least 105 HCWs to examine the acceptability of TEN and the effectiveness of TEN at 1 and 6 months in improving mental health (as assessed by the Distress Questionnaire [DQ-5], Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD-7], Oldenburg Burnout Inventory [OBI-16], and Work and Social Adjustment Scale [WSAS]) and reducing mental health stigma (the Endorsed and Anticipated Stigma Inventory [EASI]), and (3) an implementation study where TEN service uptake analytics will be examined for 3 months before and after the introduction of the implementation strategy. RESULTS: The implementation strategy, designed with input from the consultation and observational studies, is expected to lead to an increased number of unique visits to the TEN website in the 3 months following the introduction of the implementation strategy. The observational study is expected to observe high service acceptability. Moderate improvements to general mental health (DQ-5, WSAS) and a reduction in workplace- and treatment-related mental health stigma (EASI) between the baseline and 1-month time points are expected. CONCLUSIONS: TEN is a first-of-a-kind blended mental health service available to Australian HCWs. The results of this project have the potential to inform the implementation and development of blended care mental health services, as well as how such services can be effectively implemented during a crisis. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34601.

No evidence that attentional bias towards pain-related words is associated with verbally induced nocebo hyperalgesia: a dot-probe study.

INTRODUCTION: Placebo and nocebo effects in pain are well documented. One leading explanation is that instructions indicating that pain will either increase or decrease after receipt of a treatment give rise to expectations for increased or decreased pain. However, the psychological mechanisms through which expectations affect pain perception are not well understood. One possibility is that the expectation of increased pain leads to anticipatory anxiety, which in turn increases attention towards painful sensations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that attention mediates nocebo hyperalgesia. This was done by measuring attentional bias towards pain using a dot-probe task both before and after a nocebo manipulation. METHODS: Ninety-six healthy volunteers were randomized to receive one of the following: (1) an inert nasal spray with placebo instructions, (2) an inert nasal spray with nocebo instructions, or (3) no treatment. Participants completed measures of expectations, anxiety, and attention bias (dot-probe paradigm) both before and after randomization. RESULTS: Results showed that the nocebo instructions induced expectations for increased pain and resulted in nocebo hyperalgesia. Conversely, the placebo instruction failed to induce expectations for decreases in pain and did not demonstrate any placebo analgesia. Furthermore, despite the significant expectancies for pain and subsequent nocebo hyperalgesia, there were no differences between the nocebo group and either the placebo or no-treatment group for anxiety or attentional bias. CONCLUSION: The results are consistent with the expectancy model of placebo and nocebo effects. That is, changes in expectations seemed to be necessary to induce a placebo or nocebo effect. However, there was no evidence that anxiety or attention bias towards pain-related stimuli was necessary to achieve nocebo hyperalgesia.