The effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based psychological interventions exist for individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but many individuals with OCD are unable to access them because of barriers, such as geographical isolation, treatment cost, and stigma etc. Unguided self-help psychological intervention has emerged as a potential solution to this problem. However, there is limited research on its overall effectiveness. This study aimed to address this gap. METHODS: Comprehensive searches from inception to 1st Jan 2023 were conducted in both international (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, International clinical trials registry platform of WHO) and Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WeiPu, WanFang, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry) databases. The registered protocol is accessible at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FKB5W. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unguided self-help psychological interventions to control groups for individuals with OCD. The primary outcome was OCD symptom severity, with Hedges' g calculated post-intervention. Heterogeneity was deemed to be low, moderate, and high if the I2 value was quantified 25%, 50%, and 75% respectively. Relative Risks (RRs) was calculated for dropout rates post-intervention. Random-effects models were used for all analyses. RESULTS: 12 RCTs comparing unguided self-help psychological interventions to control groups were identified, with a total of 20 comparisons and 769 OCD patients. Overall, unguided self-help psychological interventions demonstrated a significant moderate effect on reducing OCD symptom severity (g = -0.42; 95% CI [-0.69; -0.14]) compared to control groups, with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 59%; 95% CI [22.73; 78.38]). This finding remained significant in sensitivity analyses for the self-rated Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS; k = 7, g = -0.46; 95% CI [-0.71; -0.2]) and after removing an outlier (g = -0.37; 95% CI [-0.55; -0.19]), but not for the clinician-rated Y-BOCS (k = 4, g = -0.78; 95% CI [-2.75; 1.19]) and Obsessive Compulsive Inventory-Revised (k = 6, g = -0.26; 95% CI [-0.53; 0]). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant difference in effect size between studies conducting intention-to-treat and completers-only analyses (p = .01). The completers-only analyses demonstrated a moderate significant effect (g = -0.65; 95% CI [-1.08; -0.21]), whereas the effect of the intention-to-treat analyses was not significant (g = -0.18; 95% CI [-0.36; 0]). Participants in the unguided self-help groups exhibited a significantly higher dropout rate (RR = 2.08; 95% CI [1.53; 2.81]) compared to control groups. Furthermore, participants recruited from the community had a higher likelihood of dropping out compared to those recruited from clinical settings (p < .001). Additionally, participants who received cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention were more likely to drop out than those who received other types of intervention (p < .001). Most trials (92%) were rated at a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Unguided self-help psychological interventions demonstrate potential effectiveness in alleviating OCD symptom severity post-intervention. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the results due to high risk of bias across trials and the relatively small sample size. And the considerable dropout rate might hinder treatment effects. Future studies with strict methodology should investigate the long-term effectiveness of unguided self-help psychological interventions for OCD, explore the reasons for high dropout rates, and improve intervention adherence.

Two decades of digital interventions for anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions for anxiety disorders are a promising solution to address barriers to evidence-based treatment access. Precise and powerful estimates of digital intervention effectiveness for anxiety disorders are necessary for further adoption in practice. The present systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of digital interventions across all anxiety disorders and specific to each disorder v. wait-list and care-as-usual controls. METHODS: A systematic search of bibliographic databases identified 15 030 abstracts from inception to 1 January 2020. Forty-seven randomized controlled trials (53 comparisons; 4958 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted by an anxiety disorder, risk of bias, treatment support, recruitment, location and treatment adherence. RESULTS: A large, pooled effect size of g = 0.80 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.68-0.93] was found in favor of digital interventions. Moderate to large pooled effect sizes favoring digital interventions were found for generalized anxiety disorder (g = 0.62), mixed anxiety samples (g = 0.68), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (g = 1.08) and social anxiety disorder (g = 0.76) subgroups. No subgroups were significantly different or related to the pooled effect size. Notably, the effects of guided interventions (g = 0.84) and unguided interventions (g = 0.64) were not significantly different. Supplemental analysis comparing digital and face-to-face interventions (9 comparisons; 683 participants) found no significant difference in effect [g = 0.14 favoring digital interventions; Confidence Interval: -0.01 to 0.30]. CONCLUSION: The precise and powerful estimates found further justify the application of digital interventions for anxiety disorders in place of wait-list or usual care.

Transdiagnostic treatment of depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the past 10 years an increasing number of randomised trials have examined the effects of transdiagnostic treatments of patients with depression or anxiety. We conducted the first comprehensive meta-analysis of the outcomes of this emerging field. METHODS: We used the searches in PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and the Cochrane library of an existing database of randomised trials of psychological interventions for depression to identify studies comparing a transdiagnostic treatment of patients with depression or anxiety with a control group (deadline 1 January 2022). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and examined the effects on depression and anxiety at the short and longer term. RESULTS: We included 45 randomised controlled trials with 51 comparisons between a psychotherapy and a control group and 5530 participants. Thirty-five (78%) studies were conducted in the last 10 years. The overall effect size was g = 0.54 (95% CI 0.40-0.69; NNT = 5.87), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 78; 95% CI 71-83), and a broad PI (-0.31-1.39). The effects remained significant in a series of sensitivity analyses, including exclusion of outliers, adjustment for publication bias, for studies with low risk of bias, and in multilevel analyses. The results were comparable for depression and anxiety separately. At 6 months after randomisation the main effects were still significant, but not at 12 months, although the number of studies was small. CONCLUSIONS: Transdiagnostic treatments of patients with depression or anxiety are increasingly examined and are probably effective at the short term.

Psychotherapy for adult depression in low- and middle-income countries: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Previous meta-analyses on psychotherapy for adult depression have found a larger treatment effect in non-Western trials compared to Western trials (i.e. North America, Europe, and Australia). However, factors contributing to this difference remain unclear. This study investigated different study characteristics between Western and non-Western trials and examined their association with effect size estimates. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (01-09-2022). We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared psychotherapy with a control condition. The validity of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1). Effect sizes were pooled using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also conducted. We identified 405 eligible trials, among which 105 trials (117 comparisons, 16 304 participants) were from non-Western countries. We confirmed that non-Western trials had a larger treatment effect (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.31) than Western trials (g = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52-0.62). Trials from non-Western countries also had more usual care controls, higher risk of bias, larger sample sizes, lower mean ages, younger adults, more group-based interventions, and other recruitment methods (e.g. systematic screening; p < 0.05). The larger effect sizes found in non-Western trials were related to the presence of wait-list controls, high risk of bias, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and clinician-diagnosed depression (p < 0.05). The larger treatment effects observed in non-Western trials may result from the high heterogeneous study design and relatively low validity. Further research on long-term effects, adolescent groups, and individual-level data are still needed.

The effectiveness of peer support for individuals with mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of peer support interventions (PSIs) for individuals with mental illness are not well known. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of PSIs for individuals with mental illness for clinical, personal, and functional recovery outcomes. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO (December 18, 2020). Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing peer-delivered PSIs to control conditions. The quality of records was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Data were pooled for each outcome, using random-effects models. RESULTS: After screening 3455 records, 30 RCTs were included in the systematic review and 28 were meta-analyzed (4152 individuals). Compared to control conditions, peer support was associated with small but significant post-test effect sizes for clinical recovery, g = 0.19, 95% CI (0.11-0.27), I2 = 10%, 95% CI (0-44), and personal recovery, g = 0.15, 95% CI (0.04-0.27), I2 = 43%, 95% CI (1-67), but not for functional recovery, g = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.18), I2 = 36%, 95% CI (0-61). Our findings should be considered with caution due to the modest quality of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: PSIs may be effective for the clinical and personal recovery of mental illness. Effects are modest, though consistent, suggesting potential efficacy for PSI across a wide range of mental disorders and intervention types.

Psychotherapy for comorbid depression and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of depression in patients with somatic disorders is crucial, given its negative impact on quality of life (QoL), functioning, and even on the somatic disease prognosis. We aimed to examine the most updated evidence on the effects of psychotherapy in patients with depression and somatic disorders, including HIV, oncological, cardiometabolic, and neurological disorders. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of 75 randomized trials (8209 participants) of psychotherapy for adults with somatic disorders and a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression. Outcomes included depression, QoL, somatic health-related outcomes, and mortality. RESULTS: Psychotherapy significantly reduced the severity of depression at post-treatment across all categories of somatic disorders (Hedges'g = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.79), with sustained effects at 6-11 months (g = 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.53) and at 12 months follow-up or longer (g = 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.21). Psychotherapy also showed significant effects on QoL (g = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.35), maintained up to 11 months follow-up (g = 0.25; 95% CI 0.16-0.34). No significant effects were observed on the most frequently reported somatic health-related outcomes (glycemic control, pain), and neither on mortality. Heterogeneity in most analyses was very high, and only 29 (38%) trials were rated at low risk of bias (RoB). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotherapy may be an effective treatment option for patients with depression and somatic disorders, with long-term effects on depression severity and QoL. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity and RoB.

Impact of climate events, pollution, and green spaces on mental health: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.

Climate change may affect mental health. We conducted an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the association between mental health and climate events related to climate change, pollution and green spaces. We searched major bibliographic databases and included meta-analyses with at least five primary studies. Results were summarized narratively. We included 24 meta-analyses on mental health and climate events (n = 13), pollution (n = 11), and green spaces (n = 2) (two meta-analyses provided data on two categories). The quality was suboptimal. According to AMSTAR-2, the overall confidence in the results was high for none of the studies, for three it was moderate, and for the other studies the confidence was low to critically low. The meta-analyses on climate events suggested an increased prevalence of symptoms of post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety associated with the exposure to various types of climate events, although the effect sizes differed considerably across study and not all were significant. The meta-analyses on pollution suggested that there may be a small but significant association between PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, CO and mental health, especially depression and suicide, as well as autism spectrum disorders after exposure during pregnancy, but the resulting effect sizes varied considerably. Serious methodological flaws make it difficult to draw credible conclusions. We found reasonable evidence for an association between climate events and mental health and some evidence for an association between pollution and mental disorders. More high-quality research is needed to verify these associations.

Psychological treatment of perinatal depression: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression during pregnancy and after the birth of a child is highly prevalent and an important public health problem. Psychological interventions are the first-line treatment and, although a considerable number of randomized trials have been conducted, no recent comprehensive meta-analysis has evaluated treatment effects. METHODS: We used an existing database of randomized controlled trials of psychotherapies for adult depression and included studies aimed at perinatal depression. Random effects models were used in all analyses. We examined the effects of the interventions in the short and long term, and also examined secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-three studies with 49 comparisons and 6270 participants between an intervention and control group were included. The overall effect size was g = 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45~0.89; numbers needed-to-be-treated = 4.39] with high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI 75~85). This effect size remained largely unchanged and significant in a series of sensitivity analyses, although some publication bias was found. The effects remained significant at 6-12 months follow-up. Significant effects were also found for social support, anxiety, functional limitations, parental stress and marital stress, although the number of studies for each outcome was low. All results should be considered with caution because of the high levels of heterogeneity in most analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions are probably effective in the treatment of perinatal depression, with effects that last at least up to 6-12 months and probably also have effects on social support, anxiety, functional impairment, parental stress, and marital stress.

Universal, selective and indicated interventions for supporting mental health at the workplace: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.

The current umbrella review aimed to assess and summarise evidence on universal, selective and indicated interventions for mental health at the workplace. This umbrella review forms one of the evidence reviews which were commissioned by the WHO to develop global guidelines on mental health at work. We conducted systematic searches in five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Global Medicus Index) and included meta-analyses of randomised trials examining psychosocial, physical activity and lifestyle interventions delivered to all general workers (universal interventions), at-risk workers (selective interventions) and workers already experiencing symptoms of mental disorders (indicated interventions). We included outcomes from seven domains: symptoms of mental health conditions, positive mental health, quality of life, work-related outcomes, substance use, suicide-related outcomes and potential adverse effects. We identified 16 meta-analyses producing 66 pooled effect sizes of the examined interventions, mostly on symptoms of mental health conditions (n=43 pooled effect sizes) (eg, burnout, insomnia, stress) and positive mental health (n=15) (eg, well-being). Most of the evidence on universal, selective and indicated interventions was focused on psychosocial interventions, showing small to moderate effects across the various outcomes. Certainty levels according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were low to very low in almost all of the examined outcomes. The results of existing meta-analyses are promising for the use of preventative and early treatment interventions in the workplace. However, the quality and certainty of the evidence were very modest, and further research on the effectiveness of these interventions is warranted.

The effects of psychological treatments of depression in children and adolescents on response, reliable change, and deterioration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Meta-analyses show that psychotherapies are effective in the treatment of depression in children and adolescents. However, these effects are usually reported in terms of effect sizes. For patients and clinicians, it is important to know whether patients achieve a clinically significant improvement or deterioration. We conducted such a meta-analysis to examine response, clinically significant change, clinically significant deterioration and recovery as outcomes. We searched four bibliographic databases and included 40 randomised trials comparing psychotherapy for youth depression against control conditions. We used a validated method to estimate outcome rates, based on means, standard deviation and N at baseline and post-test. We also calculated numbers-need-to- treat (NNT). The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 39% (95% CI: 34-45) and 24% (95% CI: 0.19-28) in control conditions (NNT: 6.2). The difference between therapy and control was still significant at 6-12 months after baseline (NNT=7.8). Clinically significant improvement was found in 54% of youth in therapy, compared with 32% in control groups (NNT=5.3); clinically significant deterioration was 6% in therapy, 13% in controls (NNT=5.1); recovery was 58% in therapy, 36% in controls (NNT=3.3). Smaller effects were found in studies with low risk of bias. Psychotherapies for depression in youth are effective compared to control conditions, but more than 60% of youth receiving therapy do not respond. More effective treatments and treatment strategies are clearly needed. Trial registration https://osf.io/84xka.

Psychological treatment of depression with other comorbid mental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Most people with a mental disorder meet criteria for multiple disorders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for people with depression and comorbid other mental disorders with non-active control conditions. We identified studies through an existing database of randomized trials on psychotherapies for depression. Thirty-five trials (3,157 patients) met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven of the 41 interventions in the 35 trials (66%) were based on CBT. The overall effect on depression was large (g = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.40 ~ 0.90), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 78%; 95% CI: 70 ~ 83). The ten studies in comorbid anxiety showed large effects on depression (g = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.30 ~ 1.51) and anxiety (g = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.28 ~ 1.74). For comorbid insomnia (11 comparisons) a large and significant effect on depression (g = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.16 ~ 1.82) and insomnia (g = 1.38; 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 2.38) were found. For comorbid substance use problems (12 comparisons) effects on depression (g = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06 ~ 0.43) and on substance use problems (g = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.01 ~ 0.50) were significant. Most effects were no longer significant after adjustment for publication bias and when limited to studies with low risk of bias. Therapies are probably effective in the treatment of depression with comorbid anxiety, insomnia, and substance use problems.

The effects of psychotherapies for depression on response, remission, reliable change, and deterioration: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses of psychotherapies usually report effects sizes, while clinicians and patients need to know the proportion of patients who benefit from therapy. We conducted a meta-analysis of therapies for depression reporting the rates of response (50% symptom reduction), remission (HAM-D <7), clinical significant deterioration for psychotherapy, and control conditions (CAU, waitlist, and pill placebo), as well as the relative risk of these outcomes and the numbers-needed-to-be-treated (NNTs). METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases and included 228 randomized trials comparing psychotherapy for depression against control conditions (75 with low risk of bias). Only therapies with at least 10 trials were included. We extracted outcomes from the studies, and for those studies not reporting the outcomes, we used a validated method to estimate the rates. RESULTS: The overall response rate in psychotherapies at 2 (±1) months after baseline was 41% (95% CI: 38~43), 17% (15~20) for usual care (CAU), and 16% (95% CI: 14~18) for waitlist. No significant differences between types of therapy were found. The NNT for therapy versus CAU was 5.3 and versus waitlist 3.9. About one third of patients remitted after therapy compared with 7%-13% in control conditions. The rates of deterioration were 5% versus 12%-13%, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses supported the general findings. CONCLUSION: Psychotherapies for depression may be effective compared with control conditions, but more than half of patients receiving therapy do not respond and only one third remitted. More effective treatments and treatment strategies such as sequencing and combining treatments are clearly needed.

Non-directive supportive therapy for depression: A meta-analytic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-directive supportive therapy (NDST) is an important treatment of adult depression, but no recent meta-analysis has integrated the randomized trials examining its effects. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis comparing NDST to control conditions and to other therapies, by using an existing database of randomized trials of psychological treatments of depression in adults. This database was built through searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: 48 randomized controlled trials (5075 participants), with 20 comparisons between NDST and a control group and 49 comparisons between NDST and another psychotherapy were included. Random effects meta-analyses found an effect size of NDST compared with control conditions of g = 0.53 (95 % CI, 0.34; 0.72) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 51; 95 % CI: 18; 71; PI = -0.02 to 1.09). NDST was less effective than other therapies (g = -0.21; 95 % CI: -0.31; -0.11). The difference with other therapies was significantly larger in studies in which NDST was used as a control group (p = .003). There was no significant difference between NDST and other therapies in which NDST was not used as a control group (k = 14; g = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.17; 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: NDST probably is an effective treatment of depression. The effects may be somewhat smaller than those of other therapies, but that may also be an artefact, because NDST is often used as a control group and may be designed as an "intent-to-fail" intervention in some studies.

A scoping review of therapist behaviors in guided digital mental health interventions.

Guided digital mental health interventions are more effective than unguided interventions. While research often emphasizes the frequency and intensity of guidance, less attention has been paid to the behaviors enacted by the therapists supporting clients using these interventions. A scoping review of the literature was conducted to systematically examine the evidence on therapist behaviors (i.e., the actions and feedback provided by supporters to patients). Applying broad eligibility criteria, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from their inception to January 1st 2024. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Following data extraction, a descriptive analysis and synthesis of the results was performed. Most studies (n = 12; 75 %) focused on therapist behaviors in the context of internet-delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for anxiety and depression. While earlier studies primarily focused on identifying therapist behaviors, later studies shifted towards examining the associations between therapist behaviors and different outcomes, as well as deriving research and clinical applications for improving guided internet-delivered treatments. Identified gaps and recommendations for clinical practice, research, training, and treatment development are discussed.

The outcomes of mental health care for depression over time: A meta-regression analysis of response rates in usual care.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades dozens of randomized trials have shown that psychological treatments are more effective than care-as-usual (CAU). It could be expected that these treatments are implemented in routine care and that the response rates in usual care improve over time. The aim of the current meta-analysis is to examine if response and remission rates in usual care have improved over time. METHODS: We used an existing meta-analytic database of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of psychological treatments of depression and selected CAU control groups from these trials. We only included CAU conditions in primary care, specialized mental health care, perinatal care and general medical care. The response rate (50 % symptom reduction) was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 125 CAU control groups (8542 participants). The response rate for all CAU control groups was 0.22 (95 % CI: 0.19; 0.24) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 83; 95 % CI: 80; 85), with somewhat higher rates in primary care (0.27; 95 % CI: 0.23; 0.31). We found hardly any indications that the outcomes have improved over the years. The meta-regression analysis with publication year as predictor in the full dataset resulted in a coefficient of 0.1 (SE = 0.01; p = 0.0.35). A series of sensitivity analyses supported the main findings. Remission rates and pre-post effect sizes also did not significantly improve over time. CONCLUSIONS: Response and remission rates in usual care are low, with the large majority of patients not responding or remitting, and the outcomes have probably not improved over time.

Technology-supported treatments for adjustment disorder: A systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of technology in psychological treatments can bring evidence-based interventions closer to more people using fewer resources. The aim of this systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis was to summarize all the available information about technology-supported psychological treatments for Adjustment Disorder (AjD) patients of all ages. METHOD: Eligibility criteria included studies that tested a technology-supported treatment in patients with AjD and reported data on a mental health outcome. Case studies and case series were excluded. Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0. tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and the NHLBI tool for pre-post studies. RESULTS: Nine articles (8 RCTs and 1 pre-post study) were included, eight that tested computerised interventions and two that used virtual reality. The meta-analysis showed the superior efficacy of the intervention groups compared to control conditions in reducing mental health symptomatology and a significant improvement between pre- and post-treatment. LIMITATIONS: The small number of studies included and the high heterogeneity among them were two of the main limitations. CONCLUSIONS: These results are similar to those observed in previous systematic reviews on technology-supported treatments for other mental disorders and suggest that these interventions could be effective for patients with AjD. However, further research is needed to determine the advantages and disadvantages of these interventions for the treatment of AjD in different age populations such as children, adolescents or older adults, as well as effective means for improving treatment retention.

Baseline depression severity as moderator on depression outcomes in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatments for adult depression include psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, yet little is known about how baseline depression severity moderates treatment outcome. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression and to examine the association between baseline depression severity and treatment outcome, converting multiple baseline depression measures into the scores of the Beck Depression Inventory, second edition (BDI-II). METHODS: We conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases up to September 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which psychotherapy was compared with pharmacotherapy in the treatment of adult depression. Various meta-regressions using the baseline depression severity as predictor of the relative effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were performed. RESULTS: We identified 65 RCTs including 7250 participants for the meta-analyses and 56 RCTs including 5548 participants for the meta-regression. We found no significant difference between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (g = -0.08, 95 % CI: -0.2 to 0.04, p = 0.193) and baseline depression severity was not significantly associated with the relative effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy (B = 0.0032, SE = 0.0096, p = 0.74). Results were similar in several sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included the low quality of the included studies, and the omission of long-term effects and within-study variability. CONCLUSIONS: We found no indication for a moderation effect of baseline depression severity on the relative effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Thus, other factors such as availability and patients' preference must be considered when deciding for treatment options.

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapies for depression in China in comparison with the rest of the world: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There is consistent evidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) are effective interventions for adult depression. While some evidence has compared these effects in different countries, no prior systematic review and meta-analysis has compared the efficacy of CBTs between Chinese and people from the rest of the world. The current meta-analysis addressed this gap by a systematic review of eligible studies from Chinese and worldwide databases. METHOD: Hedges' g was calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and multilevel meta-analytic models were conducted to examine the relationship among effect sizes and the characteristics in Chinese studies. Metaregression analyses were conducted to explore the difference of the efficacy of CBTs between Chinese studies and non-Chinese studies after controlling for the moderators. RESULTS: A total of 34 (n = 3,710) studies in China and 307 (n = 30,333) studies from the rest of the world were included. The effect size of CBTs on depression for Chinese participants was 1.19 (95% CI [0.86, 1.52]), which was higher (Q = 4.63, p = .03) than the effect size of the rest of the world (0.82, 95% CI [0.74, 0.90]). After controlling for moderators, the effect size of Chinese studies was still higher than non-Chinese studies (ß = 0.351, p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: CBTs are effective interventions for adult depression and deserve more attention in China for depression management. Moderators related to study design, clinical features, and cultural factors need to be considered in the interpretation of the results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Amount and frequency of psychotherapy as predictors of treatment outcome for adult depression: A meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the amount and frequency of psychotherapy is associated with treatment effects for adult depression. We investigated whether a number of indicators of the amount and frequency of psychotherapy were related to the treatment effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing individual, face-to-face psychotherapy to a control group (e.g., care-as-usual [CAU] or waitlist condition [WL]). METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched, and meta-regression analyses conducted to assess the relationship between the effect size (Hedges' g) of the treatment and number of sessions, duration of psychotherapy, total contact time with the therapist, and number of sessions per week. RESULTS: We included 176 studies (210 comparisons) with 15,158 participants. We did not find a relationship between the effect size, and number of sessions, or total contact time. There was a small negative association between duration of treatment and the effect size, an additional week of treatment was related to a 0.014 decrease in the effect size. In addition, there was a strong association between number of sessions per week and the effect size, an increase from one to two sessions per week was related to an effect size higher by 0.596. Both associations were no longer significant when controlling for characteristics of studies. LIMITATIONS: The current findings are correlational, future research should thus address this question in an RCT. CONCLUSIONS: We should deliver brief therapies, and thus shorten waiting lists. More sessions, if necessary, should be delivered with higher frequency and over a shorter period of time.

Combining endpoint and change data did not affect the summary standardised mean difference in pairwise and network meta-analyses: An empirical study in depression.

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR -0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.