Meditation techniques v. relaxation therapies when treating anxiety: a meta-analytic review.

To what extent meditation techniques (which incorporate practices to regulate attention, construct individual values, or deconstruct self-related assumptions), are more or less effective than relaxation therapy in the treatment of anxiety, is not clear. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of meditation compared to relaxation in reducing anxiety. A systematic review from PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Central was conducted. A meta-analysis of 14 RCTs (n = 862 participants suffering from anxiety disorders or high trait anxiety) was performed. Effect sizes (ESs) were determined by Hedges' g. Heterogeneity, risk of publication bias, quality of studies/interventions, and researcher allegiance, were evaluated. Meditation techniques incorporated attentional elements, and five of them also added constructive practices. No studies were found using deconstructive exercises. The overall ES was g = -0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.07], favouring meditation (number needed to treat = 7.74). Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 2; 95% CI 0 to 56). There was no evidence of publication bias, but few studies and interventions were of high quality, and allegiance might be moderating results. Meditation seems to be a bit more effective than relaxation in the treatment of anxiety, and it might also remain more effective at 12-month follow-up. However, more research using the full spectrum of meditation practices to treat different anxiety disorders, including independent studies to avoid researcher allegiance, is needed if we are to have a precise idea of the potential of these techniques compared to relaxation therapy.

Is cognitive-behavioural therapy more effective than relaxation therapy in the treatment of anxiety disorders? A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether relaxation therapies are more or less effective than cognitive and behavioural therapies in the treatment of anxiety. The aims of the present study were to examine the effects of relaxation techniques compared to cognitive and behavioural therapies in reducing anxiety symptoms, and whether they have comparable efficacy across disorders. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis of 50 studies (2801 patients) comparing relaxation training with cognitive and behavioural treatments of anxiety. RESULTS: The overall effect size (ES) across all anxiety outcomes, with only one combined ES in each study, was g = -0.27 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.41 to -0.13], favouring cognitive and behavioural therapies (number needed to treat = 6.61). However, no significant difference between relaxation and cognitive and behavioural therapies was found for generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and specific phobias (considering social anxiety and specific phobias separately). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 52; 95% CI = 33-65). The ES was significantly associated with age (p < 0.001), hours of cognitive and/or behavioural therapy (p = 0.015), quality of intervention (p = 0.007), relaxation treatment format (p < 0.001) and type of disorder (p = 0.008), explaining an 82% of variance. CONCLUSIONS: Relaxation seems to be less effective than cognitive and behavioural therapies in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder and it might also be less effective at 1-year follow-up for panic, but there is no evidence that it is less effective for other anxiety disorders.

Factors related to the development of health-promoting community activities in Spanish primary healthcare: two case-control studies.

OBJECTIVE: Spanish primary healthcare teams have the responsibility of performing health-promoting community activities (CAs), although such activities are not widespread. Our aim was to identify the factors related to participation in those activities. DESIGN: Two case-control studies. SETTING: Performed in primary care of five Spanish regions. SUBJECTS: In the first study, cases were teams that performed health-promoting CAs and controls were those that did not. In the second study (on case teams from the first study), cases were professionals who developed these activities and controls were those who did not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Team, professional and community characteristics collected through questionnaires (team managers/professionals) and from secondary sources. RESULTS: The first study examined 203 teams (103 cases, 100 controls). Adjusted factors associated with performing CAs were percentage of nurses (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14), community socioeconomic status (higher vs lower OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.95) and performing undergraduate training (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.93). In the second study, 597 professionals responded (254 cases, 343 controls). Adjusted factors were professional classification (physicians do fewer activities than nurses and social workers do more), training in CAs (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.1), team support (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7), seniority (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.09), nursing tutor (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.5), motivation (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 7.5), collaboration with non-governmental organisations (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.1) and participation in neighbourhood activities (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Professional personal characteristics, such as social sensitivity, profession, to feel team support or motivation, have influence in performing health-promoting CAs. In contrast to the opinion expressed by many professionals, workload is not related to performance of health-promoting CAs.

The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Primary Care: A Meta-Analytic Review.

PURPOSE: Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients. METHODS: We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models. RESULTS: The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I(2) = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0; P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.

La investigación en atención primaria como área de conocimiento. Informe SESPAS 2012 / Research in primary care as an area of knowledge. SESPAS Report 2012

La atención primaria de salud ofrece grandes oportunidades para la investigación. Constituye un área de conocimiento propio, que es necesario desarrollar para mejorar la calidad de sus servicios y la salud de los pacientes. Estas oportunidades son únicas para la investigación clínica de base poblacional, con un enfoque de promoción de la salud y de prevención de la enfermedad, ya sea primaria, secundaria o terciaria. Es prioritario investigar en el desarrollo del modelo biopsicosocial de atención, nuevos modelos de atención integrada y atención comunitaria. Cabe destacar la actividad y la estructura generada por la Red de Investigación en Actividades Preventivas y de Promoción de la Salud (redIAPP), que ha atraído a su alrededor gran parte de la actividad investigadora en atención primaria de salud en nuestro país. A pesar del esfuerzo de diversas instituciones y fundaciones, así como de unidades docentes y de investigación, el desarrollo de la investigación no ha alcanzado el volumen, la relevancia, la calidad y el impacto deseables. La presencia de los profesionales de atención primaria de salud en las estructuras de investigación sigue siendo escasa, y la inversión en proyectos y líneas de investigación propias es pobre. Para poder invertir esta situación se precisa una serie de medidas: consolidar estructuras organizativas de apoyo específicas, con adecuada dotación de personal y recursos económicos; facilitar que los profesionales puedan compatibilizar su labor clínica con una dedicación específica a la investigación, para que elaboren proyectos relevantes y consoliden líneas de investigación estables de contenidos acordes con el área de conocimiento propio, y que se apliquen a la mejora de la calidad y a la innovación de los servicios de atención primaria de salud (AU)

Primary care offers huge potential for research. This setting is an area of knowledge that must expand to improve the quality of its services and patients’ health. Population-based clinical studies with a focus on health promotion and primary, secondary and tertiary disease prevention offer unique research opportunities. Developing research in the biopsychosocial model of clinical practice and new models of integrated healthcare and community care is therefore a priority. The framework and activities carried out by the Research Network in Preventive Activities and Health Promotion have been instrumental in the development of research in primary care in Spain. Despite the efforts invested by various institutions, foundations, teaching and research departments in primary care research, the projected outputs in terms of volume, quality and impact have not been achieved. The involvement of primary care professionals in research platforms is insufficient, with scarce contribution toward investment in specific primary care research projects. To change the current status of research in primary care, a number of measures are required, namely, the consolidation of research organisms specific to primary care with adequate allocation of funding and staff, and the allocation of specific time for research to primary care professionals to enable them to produce significant projects and consolidate established research lines in their areas of expertise, with applications mainly in quality improvement and innovation of primary care services (AU)

[Research in primary care as an area of knowledge. SESPAS Report 2012]. / La investigación en atención primaria como área de conocimiento. Informe SESPAS 2012.

Primary care offers huge potential for research. This setting is an area of knowledge that must expand to improve the quality of its services and patients' health. Population-based clinical studies with a focus on health promotion and primary, secondary and tertiary disease prevention offer unique research opportunities. Developing research in the biopsychosocial model of clinical practice and new models of integrated healthcare and community care is therefore a priority. The framework and activities carried out by the Research Network in Preventive Activities and Health Promotion have been instrumental in the development of research in primary care in Spain. Despite the efforts invested by various institutions, foundations, teaching and research departments in primary care research, the projected outputs in terms of volume, quality and impact have not been achieved. The involvement of primary care professionals in research platforms is insufficient, with scarce contribution toward investment in specific primary care research projects. To change the current status of research in primary care, a number of measures are required, namely, the consolidation of research organisms specific to primary care with adequate allocation of funding and staff, and the allocation of specific time for research to primary care professionals to enable them to produce significant projects and consolidate established research lines in their areas of expertise, with applications mainly in quality improvement and innovation of primary care services.