Using a Novel Gameplay Intervention to Target Intrusive Memories After Work-Related Trauma: Iterative Qualitative Analysis of Intensive Care Unit Staff Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Many intensive care unit (ICU) staff experience intrusive memories following work-related traumatic events, which can lead to long-term mental health outcomes and impact work functioning. There is a need for interventions that target intrusive memories in this population; however, factors such as mental health stigma and difficulty in fitting interventions into busy schedules can pose barriers. The Brief Gameplay Intervention For National Health Service Intensive Care Unit Staff Affected By COVID-19 Trauma (GAINS) study tested a brief, digital imagery-competing task intervention (including computer gameplay) with the aim of reducing the recurrence of intrusive memories, which holds promise for overcoming some of these barriers. OBJECTIVE: This substudy aims to explore barriers and facilitators to the uptake and practical use of the intervention by ICU staff, along with its acceptability, and iteratively explore the impact of intervention optimizations to further refine the intervention. METHODS: The GAINS study is a randomized controlled trial comparing access to a brief digital imagery-competing task intervention for 4 weeks with usual care followed by delayed access to the intervention. The participants were ICU staff who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic and experienced intrusive memories. All participants were sent a questionnaire at 4 weeks to gather data about intervention acceptability. Nested within the randomized controlled trial, a subset of 16 participants was interviewed, and data were analyzed using thematic analysis drawing from a framework approach. RESULTS: Both quantitative and qualitative data indicated high acceptability of the intervention. Intervention use data show that, on average, staff were able to target approximately 73% (3.64/4.88) of their intrusive memories and engaged with the Tetris component for the full 20 minutes per session. Overall, on the acceptability questionnaire, staff found the intervention easy to use, helpful, and highly acceptable. The interviews generated four themes: approach to the intervention, positives of the intervention, negatives of the intervention, and improvements and optimizations. Findings highlighted barriers that ICU staff experienced: stigma, feeling weak for seeking help, not wanting colleagues to know they were struggling, and skepticism. However, they provided suggestions on how barriers could be overcome and discussed the advantages of the intervention when compared with other treatments. Although participants described many positive aspects of the intervention, such as being easy to use, enjoyable, and leading to a reduction in the frequency or intensity of intrusive memories, they also raised practical issues for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention has the potential to overcome stigma and reduce the frequency of intrusive memories after traumatic events among ICU staff. Further refinement is needed to improve the adoption and reach of this intervention. A limitation is that we could not interview the National Health Service staff who were unable or unwilling to take part in the trial.

Reducing intrusive memories after trauma via an imagery-competing task intervention in COVID-19 intensive care staff: a randomised controlled trial.

Intrusive memories (IMs) after traumatic events can be distressing and disrupt mental health and functioning. We evaluated the impact of a brief remotely-delivered digital imagery-competing task intervention on the number of IMs for intensive care unit (ICU) staff who faced repeated trauma exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic using a two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind randomised controlled trial, with the comparator arm receiving delayed access to active treatment (crossover). Eligible participants worked clinically in a UK NHS ICU during the pandemic and had at least 3 IMs of work-related traumatic events in the week before recruitment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to immediate (weeks 1-4) or delayed (weeks 5-8) intervention access. Sequential Bayesian analyses to optimise the intervention and increase trial efficiency are reported elsewhere [1]. The primary endpoint for the pre-specified frequentist analysis of the final study population compared the number of IMs experienced in week 4 between the immediate and delayed access arms. Secondary outcomes included clinical symptoms, work functioning and wellbeing. Safety was assessed throughout the trial by scheduled questions and free report. All analyses were undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis (86 randomised participants). There were significantly fewer intrusive memories during week 4 in the immediate (median = 1, IQR = 0-3, n = 43), compared to the comparator delayed arm (median = 10, IQR = 6-17, n = 43), IRR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48, p < 0.001. After crossover, the delayed arm also showed a significant reduction in IMs at week 8 compared to week 4. There were convergent findings for symptoms of PTSD, insomnia and anxiety, work engagement and burnout, general functioning and quality of life. The intervention was found safe and acceptable to participants. All adverse events were unrelated to the study. Our study provides the first evidence of a benefit on reducing IMs, improving other clinical symptoms, work functioning and wellbeing, as well as safety of a brief remotely-delivered digital imagery-competing task intervention. An efficacy trial with an active control and longer follow-up is warranted. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04992390).

Clinical effectiveness of active Alpha-Stim AID versus sham Alpha-Stim AID in major depression in primary care in England (Alpha-Stim-D): a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised sham-controlled trials of cranial electrostimulation with the Alpha-Stim Anxiety Insomnia and Depression (AID) device have reported improved anxiety and depression symptoms; however, no adequately powered sham-controlled trials in major depression are available. We investigated whether active Alpha-Stim AID is superior to sham Alpha-Stim AID in terms of clinical effectiveness for depression symptoms in major depression. METHODS: The Alpha-Stim-D trial was a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, recruiting participants from 25 primary care centres in two regions in England, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older with a current diagnosis of primary major depression, a score of 10-19 on the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire, and had been offered or prescribed and reported taking antidepressant medication for at least 6 weeks in the previous 3 months. Main exclusion criteria were contraindications to Alpha-Stim AID device use, having persistent suicidal ideation or self-harm, neurological conditions, a substance use disorder or dependence, an eating disorder, bipolar disorder, or non-affective psychosis, or receiving psychological treatment in the past 3 months. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1, minimised by region, anxiety disorder, and antidepressant use) to 1 h daily use of active (100 µA) or sham Alpha-Stim AID treatment for 8 weeks. Randomisation was via an independent web-based system, with participants, outcome assessors, and data analyst masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was change from baseline in score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17, GRID version) at 16 weeks after randomisation, with participants analysed by intention to treat (ITT; all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN11853110); status completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 8, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, 236 eligible participants were randomly assigned to active or sham Alpha-Stim AID (n=118 each). 156 (66%) participants were women, 77 (33%) were men, and three (1%) self-reported as other gender; 200 (85%) were White British or Irish; and the mean age was 38·0 years (SD 15·3; range 16-83). 102 (86%) participants in the active Alpha-Stim AID group and 98 (83%) in the sham group were followed up 16 weeks after randomisation. In the ITT population, mean change in GRID-HDRS-17 at 16 weeks was -5·9 (95% CI -7·1 to -4·8) in the active Alpha-Stim AID group and -6·5 (-7·7 to -5·4) in the sham group (mean change difference -0·6 [95% CI -1·0 to 2·2], p=0·46). Among the 236 participants, 17 adverse events were reported in 17 (7%) participants (nine [8%] participants in the active Alpha-Stim AID group; and eight [7%] participants in the sham group). One serious adverse event of suicidal ideation leading to hospitalisation was reported in the sham group, which was judged to be unrelated to the device. INTERPRETATION: Active Alpha-Stim AID was safe and acceptable, but no more clinically effective than sham Alpha-Stim AID in major depression. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands and Electromedical Products International.

A randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in patients seeking treatment for moderate severity depression in primary care (Alpha-Stim-D Trial).

BACKGROUND: Major depression is the second leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide and is a leading contributor to suicide. However, first-line antidepressants are only fully effective for 33%, and only 40% of those offered psychological treatment attend for two sessions or more. Views gained from patients and primary care professionals are that greater treatment uptake might be achieved if people with depression could be offered alternative and more accessible treatment options. Although there is evidence that the Alpha-Stim Anxiety Insomnia and Depression (AID) device is safe and effective for anxiety and depression symptoms in people with anxiety disorders, there is much less evidence of efficacy in major depression without anxiety. This study investigates the effectiveness of the Alpha-Stim AID device, a cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) treatment that people can safely use independently at home. The device provides CES which has been shown to increase alpha oscillatory brain activity, associated with relaxation. METHODS: The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Alpha-Stim AID in treatment-seeking patients (aged 16 years upwards) with moderate to moderately severe depressive symptoms in primary care. The study is a multi-centre parallel-group, double-blind, non-commercial, randomised controlled superiority trial. The primary objective of the study is to examine the clinical efficacy of active daily use of 8 weeks of Alpha-Stim AID versus sham Alpha-Stim AID on depression symptoms at 16 weeks (8 weeks after the end of treatment) in people with moderate severity depression. The primary outcome is the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at 16 weeks. All trial and treatment procedures are carried out remotely using videoconferencing, telephone and postal delivery considering the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. DISCUSSION: This study is investigating whether participants using the Alpha-Stim AID device display a reduction in depressive symptoms that can be maintained over 8 weeks post-treatment. The findings will help to determine whether Alpha-Stim AID should be recommended, including being made available in the NHS for patients with depressive symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRTCN ISRCTN11853110 . Registered on 14 August 2020.

The effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for preventing or treating postpartum depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Postpartum depression can have detrimental effects on both a mother's physical and mental health and on her child's growth and emotional development. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of exercise/physical activity-based interventions in preventing and treating postpartum depressive symptoms in primiparous and multiparous women to the end of the postnatal period at 52 weeks postpartum. Electronic databases were searched for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials of exercise/physical activity-based interventions in preventing and treating depressive symptoms and increasing health-related quality of life in women from 4 to 52 weeks postpartum. The results of the studies were meta-analysed and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment and Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to determine the confidence in the effect estimates. Eighteen trials conducted across a range of countries met the inclusion criteria. Most of the exercise interventions were aerobic and coaching compared to usual care, non-intervention and active controls. Small effect sizes of exercise-based interventions in reducing depressive symptoms were observed collectively and the quality of evidence was low across the individual studies. Although exercise-based interventions could create an alternative therapeutic approach for preventing major depression in postpartum women who experience subthreshold elevated depressive symptoms, the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based and physical activity interventions need to be better established. There is a need for further more rigorous testing of such interventions in high-quality randomised controlled trials against active control conditions before large-scale roll-out of these interventions in clinical practice is proposed.