Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for prevention and time to depressive relapse: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the long-term effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with available strategies for prevention and time to depressive relapse. METHODS: Seven electronic databases were searched up to June 2019. Studies evaluated MBCT for the management of depression-related outcomes and follow-up assessments occurred at 12 months or longer. RESULTS: Twenty-three publications were included, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data from 14 RCTs including 2077 participants contributed to meta-analysis (MA) and NMA to assess relapse of depression and 13 RCTs with 2017 participants contributed to MA and NMA for time to relapse of depression. NMAs showed statistically significant advantages for MBCT over treatment as usual (TAU) for relapse of depression (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98) and for MBCT over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression (MBCT vs TAU: HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88; MBCT vs placebo: HR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67). Subgroup meta-analysis of relapse of depression by previous number of depressive episodes showed similar results between subgroups. Subgroup meta-analysis by the use or not of booster sessions suggests these may lead to improved effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: MBCT is more effective than TAU in the long-term in preventing relapse of depression and has statistically significant advantages over TAU and placebo for time to relapse of depression. No statistically significant differences were observed between MBCT and active treatment strategies for rate of relapse or time to relapse of depression.

Are acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions 'value for money'? Evidence from a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions (A/MBIs) are recommended for people with mental health conditions. Although there is a growing evidence base supporting the effectiveness of different A/MBIs for mental health conditions, the economic case for these interventions has not been fully explored. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and appraise all available economic evidence of A/MBIs for the management of mental health conditions. METHODS: Eight electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and EconLit) were searched for relevant economic evaluations published from each database's inception date until November 2017. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines. RESULTS: Ten relevant economic evaluations presented in 11 papers were identified. Seven of the included studies were full economic evaluations (i.e., costs and effects assessed), and three studies were partial economic evaluations (i.e., only costs were considered in the analysis). The A/MBIs that had been subjected to economic evaluation were acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). In terms of clinical presentations, the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs has been more focused on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder with three and four economic evaluations, respectively. Three out of seven full economic evaluations observed that A/MBIs were cost-effective for the management of mental health conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of included populations, interventions, and economic evaluation study types limits the extent to which firm conclusions can currently be made. CONCLUSION: This first substantive review of economic evaluations of A/MBIs indicates that more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the cost-effectiveness of A/MBIs for mental health conditions. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The findings of the review provide information that may be relevant to mental health service commissioners and decision-makers as all economic evidence available on acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions for mental health conditions is summarized. Evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness and cost-saving potential of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions is focused mainly on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder to date. Heterogeneity in the specific forms of acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions may limit generalizability of the findings. The number of health economic evaluations relating to acceptance and mindfulness-based interventions remains relatively small. Further research in this area is required.

The Utility of Home-Practice in Mindfulness-Based Group Interventions: A Systematic Review.

A growing body of research supports the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs). MBIs consider home-practice as essential to increasing the therapeutic effects of the treatment. To date however, the synthesis of the research conducted on the role of home-practice in controlled MBI studies has been a neglected area. This review aimed to conduct a narrative synthesis of published controlled studies, evaluating mindfulness-based group interventions, which have specifically measured home-practice. Empirical research literature published until June 2016 was searched using five databases. The search strategy focused on mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and home-practice. Included studies met the following criteria: controlled trials, participants 18 years and above, evaluations of MBSR or MBCT, utilised standardised quantitative outcome measures and monitored home-practice using a self-reported measure. Fourteen studies met the criteria and were included in the review. Across all studies, there was heterogeneity in the guidance and resources provided to participants and the approaches used for monitoring home-practice. In addition, the guidance on the length of home-practice was variable across studies, which indicates that research studies and teachers are not adhering to the published protocols. Finally, only seven studies examined the relationship between home-practice and clinical outcomes, of which four found that home-practice predicted improvements on clinical outcome measures. Future research should adopt a standardised approach for monitoring home-practice across MBIs. Additionally, studies should assess whether the amount of home-practice recommended to participants is in line with MBSR/MBCT manualised protocols. Finally, research should utilise experimental methodologies to explicitly explore the relationship between home-practice and clinical outcomes.