The Impact of Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Objective Physiological Measures of Autonomic Function for Individuals With Medical Conditions: A Review of the Evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Autonomic dysregulation is common in many medical conditions and can have a widespread, negative impact on multiple bodily systems, leading to poorer health outcomes. Thus, addressing autonomic dysregulation as part of a comprehensive treatment plan is important. The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of the physiological benefits of a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) for a population with medical conditions, using validated, objective measures of autonomic functioning. METHODS: We conducted a review of the literature and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols. Studies were included if a) participants were diagnosed with a medical condition, b) an MBI was used, and c) objective pre/post measurements of autonomic nervous system function were collected. Medical conditions were included as a category for this review when a minimum of three articles met the criteria for inclusion. RESULTS: Ten articles met the criteria and included oncology, cardiac, and chronic pain conditions. Clinical recommendations were made based on the Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual, 2017 Edition by the American Academy of Neurology. CONCLUSIONS: Based on level of evidence, only oncology met the criteria for "possibly effective." However, there was some evidence of the benefit of MBIs for all three medical conditions, based on individual study findings.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2. MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Mental Health First Aid as a tool for improving mental health and well-being.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental health problems is high, and they have a wide-ranging and deleterious effect on many sectors in society. As well as the impact on individuals and families, mental health problems in the workplace negatively affect productivity. One of the factors that may exacerbate the impact of mental health problems is a lack of 'mental health literacy' in the general population. This has been defined as 'knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders, which aid their recognition, management, or prevention'. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme developed in Australia in 2000; its aim is to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The course has been adapted for various contexts, but essentially covers the symptoms of various mental health disorders, along with associated mental health crisis situations. The programmes also teach trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. It is theorised that improved knowledge will encourage the trainees to provide support, and encourage people to actively seek help, thereby leading to improvements in mental health. This review focuses on the effects of MHFA on the mental health and mental well-being of individuals and communities in which MHFA training has been provided. We also examine the impact on mental health literacy. This information is essential for decision-makers considering the role of MHFA training in their organisations. OBJECTIVES: To examine mental health and well-being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of MHFA training on individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered. SEARCH METHODS: We developed a sensitive search strategy to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MHFA training. This approach used bibliographic databases searching, using a search strategy developed for Ovid MEDLINE (1946 -), and translated across to Ovid Embase (1974 -), Ovid PsycINFO (1967 -), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched online clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), grey literature and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. Searches are current to 13th June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention, active or attention control (such as first aid courses), waiting list control, or alternative mental health literacy interventions. Participants were individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered and MHFA trainees. Primary outcomes included mental health and well-being of individuals, mental health service usage and adverse effects of MHFA training. Secondary outcomes related to individuals, MHFA trainees, and communities or organisations in which MHFA training has been delivered DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the key results using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving a total of 22,604 participants were included in the review. Fifteen studies compared MHFA training with no intervention/waiting list, two studies compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention, and four studies compared MHFA training with an active or an attention control intervention. Our primary time point was between six and 12 months. When MHFA training was compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.28; 3 studies; 3939 participants). We judged all the results that contributed to this outcome as being at high risk of bias. No study measured mental health service usage at six to 12 months. We did not find published data on adverse effects. Only one study with usable data compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention. The study did not measure outcomes in individuals in the community. It also did not measure outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. Four studies with usable data compared MHFA training to an active or attention control. None of the studies measured outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot draw conclusions about the effects of MHFA training on our primary outcomes due to the lack of good quality evidence. This is the case whether it is compared to no intervention, to an alternative mental health literacy intervention, or to an active control. Studies are at high risk of bias and often not sufficiently large to be able to detect differences.

Collaborative evaluation of a pilot involvement opportunity: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Voice of Experience College.

BACKGROUND: Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups. METHODS: This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points. RESULTS: The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two-way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group-specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co-authored the paper.

Effects of interventions on depression and anxiety in older people with physical health problems in the criminal justice system: a systematic review.

The demand for health care in older people involved in the criminal justice system is high. The prevalence of mental and physical health conditions for people living in prison is greater than in community populations. After systematically searching 21 databases, we found no targeted interventions to support depression or anxiety for this group of people. 24 studies (including interventions of yoga, creative-arts-based programmes, positive psychology, or mindfulness-based interventions and psychotherapy) did contain people older than 50 years, but this only represented a minority (10%) of the overall study population. No single study reported outcomes of physical health. Future interventions need to consider the needs and views of this vulnerable group. Specific gendered and coproduced interventions are required to enhance the implementation, feasibility, and acceptability of interventions that are delivered in prisons.

Self-Help Plus for refugees and asylum seekers: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

QUESTION: Refugees and asylum seekers are at high risk of mental disorders due to various stressors before, during and after forceful displacement. The WHO Self-Help Plus (SH+) intervention was developed to manage psychological distress and a broad range of mental health symptoms in vulnerable populations. This study aimed to examine the effects and moderators of SH+ compared with Enhanced Care as Usual (ECAU) in reducing depressive symptoms among refugees and asylum seekers. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three randomised trials were identified with 1795 individual participant data (IPD). We performed an IPD meta-analysis to estimate the effects of SH+, primarily on depressive symptoms and second on post-traumatic stress, well-being, self-identified problems and functioning. Effects were also estimated at 5-6 months postrandomisation (midterm). FINDINGS: There was no evidence of a difference between SH+ and ECAU+ in reducing depressive symptoms at postintervention. However, SH+ had significantly larger effects among participants who were not employed (ß=1.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.00) and had lower mental well-being levels (ß=0.02, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.05). At midterm, SH+ was significantly more effective than ECAU in improving depressive symptoms (ß=-1.13, 95% CI -1.99 to -0.26), self-identified problems (ß=-1.56, 95% CI -2.54 to -0.59) and well-being (ß=6.22, 95% CI 1.60 to 10.90). CONCLUSIONS: Although SH+ did not differ significantly from ECAU in reducing symptoms of depression at postintervention, it did present benefits for particularly vulnerable participants (ie, unemployed and with lower mental well-being levels), and benefits were also evident at midterm follow-up. These results are promising for the use of SH+ in the management of depressive symptoms and improvement of well-being and self-identified problems among refugees and asylum seekers.

Study Preregistration: Measuring What Matters: Development and Dissemination of a Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Anxiety Disorders Clinical Trials.

Pediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent disorders with an impact on all aspects of a child's life and functioning.1 Although evidence supports commonly used treatments, there are notable concerns with the research to date.2 Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement, analysis, and reporting is a contributing factor to the hinderance of the translation of research into clinical practice.3 Recognition for outcome standardization in pediatric mental health disorders is evolving and there are several initiatives of importance, including the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), which has developed standardized outcome sets for use in the routine clinical mental health treatment of children and adolescents.4 Similarly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders5 advocate for use of 1 specific outcome measurement instrument (OMI) in the youth mental health research that they fund. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials, has been a solution in other areas of medicine to address heterogeneity in outcome selection and measurement across trials.6 The Core Outcomes and Measures in Pediatric Anxiety Clinical Trials (COMPACT) Initiative will develop a harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based COS that is meaningful to youth and families for use in future trials in pediatric AD.

Routinely used interventions to improve attachment in infants and young children: a national survey and two systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Attachment refers to an infant's innate tendency to seek comfort from their caregiver. Research shows that attachment is important in promoting healthy social and emotional development. Many parenting interventions have been developed to improve attachment outcomes for children. However, numerous interventions used in routine practice have a limited evidence base, meaning that we cannot be sure if they are helpful or harmful. OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to conduct a large-scale survey to identify what interventions are being used in UK services to improve child attachment; conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence for parenting attachment interventions; and develop recommendations for future research and practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: We worked closely with our Expert Reference Group to plan a large-scale survey focused on relevant UK services. We then conducted two systematic reviews. One searched for all randomised controlled trial evidence for any attachment parenting intervention. The second searched for all research for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified from the survey. RESULTS: The survey collected 625 responses covering 734 UK services. The results identified the 10 most commonly used interventions. The responses showed a limited use of validated measures and a wide variety of definitions of attachment. For the first review, seven studies were included from 2516 identified records. These were combined with results from previous reviews conducted by the team. Meta-analyses showed that, overall, parenting interventions are effective in reducing disorganised attachment (pooled odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.77) and increasing secure attachment (pooled odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.52). The second review searched the literature for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified by the survey; 61 studies were included from 1198 identified records. The results showed that many of the most commonly used interventions in UK services have a weak evidence base and those with the strongest evidence base are not as widely used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for better links between research and practice to ensure that interventions offered to families are safe and effective. Possible reasons for the disparity include the cost and accessibility of training. There is also a need for improved understanding by professionals regarding the meaning of attachment. LIMITATIONS: Although the survey had good geographical spread, most respondents were based in England. For review 2 we were unable to access a large number of papers; however, we conducted extensive reference checking to account for this. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for robust research to test the efficacy of routinely used attachment interventions. Research could also explore why routinely used interventions are not consistently subject to thorough evaluation; how to embed dissemination, cost-effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability into research; and how to keep clinical practice up to date with research developments. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137362. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Attachment refers to an infant's natural instinct to seek comfort from their main carers. There are four ways in which infants show attachment ('attachment patterns'). These are known as secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant and disorganised. Secure attachment usually occurs with consistent and responsive parenting/caregiving and is linked with positive social and emotional child development. Inconsistent, neglectful or abusive parenting/caregiving can lead to problems with attachment, including disorganised attachment, and is linked to poorer outcomes. Parenting support, education and therapies help parents improve infant attachment and their child's outcomes. We surveyed UK services to see what they offered families with attachment problems. A total of 734 UK services responded. This identified 10 therapies or support packages most commonly offered to parents. We checked what research had been done on these. We found very little. We found 61 studies of support packages with quite good evidence, but these were generally not ones offered by UK services. We also looked in detail at research for all types of support/therapies to improve attachment. We looked for the best research (called 'randomised controlled trials'); 26 studies had tested therapies to see if they improved secure attachment and 20 had tested whether or not they improved (i.e. reduced) disorganised attachment. We found that these therapies or support packages are good at increasing secure attachment and improving disorganised attachment. Mostly they did this by helping parents/caregivers improve caregiving and particularly how sensitive and responsive they are to their child and their needs. Currently, practice is not following research, and research is not being done to properly evaluate current practice. We need to improve the evidence and the way it links to practice, including how those organising and paying for services are made aware of up-to-date research to make sure that the best treatments are available. High-quality training for staff is also important.

Risk factors for mental disorder development in asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Western Europe and Turkey: Participant-level analysis of two large prevention studies.

BACKGROUND: In asylum seekers and refugees, the frequency of mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, is higher than the general population, but there is a lack of data on risk factors for the development of mental disorders in this population. AIM: This study investigated the risk factors for mental disorder development in a large group of asylum seekers and refugees resettled in high- and middle-income settings. METHODS: Participant-level data from two randomized prevention studies involving asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Western European countries and in Turkey were pooled. The two studies randomized participants with psychological distress, but without a diagnosis of mental disorder, to the Self-Help Plus psychological intervention or enhanced care as usual. At baseline, exposure to potentially traumatic events was measured using the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire-part I, while psychological distress and depressive symptoms were assessed with the General Health Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire. After 3 and 6 months of follow-up, the proportion of participants who developed a mental disorder was calculated using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. RESULTS: A total of 1,101 participants were included in the analysis. At 3- and 6-month follow-up the observed frequency of mental disorders was 13.51% (115/851) and 24.30% (207/852), respectively, while the frequency estimates after missing data imputation were 13.95% and 23.78%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, logistic regression analysis showed that participants with a lower education level (p = .034), a shorter duration of journey (p = .057) and arriving from countries with war-related contexts (p = .017), were more at risk of developing mental disorders. Psychological distress (p = .004), depression (p = .001) and exposure to potentially traumatic events (p = .020) were predictors of mental disorder development. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several risk factors for the development of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees, some of which may be the target of risk reduction policies. The identification of asylum seekers and refugees at increased risk of mental disorders should guide the implementation of focused preventative psychological interventions.

Impairments in psychological functioning in refugees and asylum seekers.

Refugees are at increased risk for developing psychological impairments due to stressors in the pre-, peri- and post-migration periods. There is limited knowledge on how everyday functioning is affected by migration experience. In a secondary analysis of a study in a sample of refugees and asylum seekers, it was examined how aspects of psychological functioning were differentially affected. 1,101 eligible refugees and asylum seekers in Europe and Türkiye were included in a cross-sectional analysis. Gender, age, education, number of relatives and children living nearby, as well as indicators for depressive and posttraumatic symptoms, quality of life, psychological well-being and functioning, and lifetime potentially traumatic events were assessed. Correlations and multiple regression models with World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) 12-item version's total and six subdomains' scores ('mobility', 'life activities', 'cognition', 'participation', 'self-care', 'getting along') as dependent variables were calculated. Tests for multicollinearity and Bonferroni correction were applied. Participants reported highest levels of impairment in 'mobility' and 'participation', followed by 'life activities' and 'cognition'. Depression and posttraumatic symptoms were independently associated with overall psychological functioning and all subdomains. History of violence and abuse seemed to predict higher impairment in 'participation', while past events of being close to death were associated with fewer issues with 'self-care'. Impairment in psychological functioning in asylum seekers and refugees was related to current psychological symptoms. Mobility and participation issues may explain difficulties arising after resettlement in integration and exchange with host communities in new contexts.

Trajectories of psychosocial symptoms and wellbeing in asylum seekers and refugees exposed to traumatic events and resettled in Western Europe, Turkey, and Uganda.

Background: Longitudinal studies examining mental health trajectories in refugees and asylum seekers are scarce. Objectives: To investigate trajectories of psychological symptoms and wellbeing in refugees and asylum seekers, and identify factors associated with these trajectories. Method: 912 asylum seekers and refugees from the control arm of three trials in Europe (n = 229), Turkey (n = 320), and Uganda (n = 363) were included. We described trajectories of psychological symptoms and wellbeing, and used trauma exposure, age, marital status, education, and individual trial as predictors. Then, we assessed the bidirectional interactions between wellbeing and psychological symptoms, and the effect of each predictor on each outcome controlling for baseline values. Results: Symptom improvement was identified in all trials, and for wellbeing in 64.7% of participants in Europe and Turkey, versus 31.5% in Uganda. In Europe and Turkey domestic violence predicted increased symptoms at post-intervention (ß = 1.36, 95% CI 0.17-2.56), whilst murder of family members at 6-month follow-up (ß = 1.23, 95% CI 0.27-2.19). Lower wellbeing was predicted by murder of family member (ß = -1.69, 95% CI -3.06 to -0.32), having been kidnapped (ß = -1.67, 95% CI -3.19 to -0.15), close to death (ß = -1.38, 95% CI -2.70 to -0.06), and being in the host country ≥2 years (ß = -1.60, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.14). In Uganda at post-intervention, having been kidnapped predicted increased symptoms (ß = 2.11, 95% CI 0.58-3.65), and lack of shelter (ß = -2.51, 95% CI -4.44 to -0.58) and domestic violence predicted lower wellbeing (ß = -1.36, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.05). Conclusion: Many participants adapt to adversity, but contextual factors play a critical role in determining mental health trajectories.

Antecedentes: Estudios longitudinales que examinan las trayectorias de la salud mental en los refugiados y solicitantes de asilo son escasos.Objetivos: Investigar las trayectorias de los síntomas psicológicos y el bienestar en refugiados y solicitantes de asilo, e identificar factores asociados a estas trayectorias.Métodos: Se incluyeron 912 solicitantes de asilos y refugiados del brazo control de tres ensayos clínicos en Europa (n = 229), Turquía (n = 320) y Uganda (n = 363). Describimos las trayectorias psicológicas de los síntomas y el bienestar, y utilizamos la exposición traumática, la edad, el estado marital, la educación y el juicio individual como predictores. Después, evaluamos las interacciones bidireccionales entre el bienestar y los síntomas psicológicos, y el efecto de cada uno de los predictores en cada resultado controlando por los valores iniciales.Resultados: Se identificó una mejoría en los síntomas en todos los ensayos, y del bienestar en el 64.7% de los participantes en Europa y Turquía, versus el 31.5% en Uganda. En Europa y en Turquía, la violencia doméstica predijo el incremento de síntomas de después de la intervención (ß = 1.36, 95% CI 0.17 a 2.56), mientras que el homicidio de algún miembro familiar a los 6 meses de seguimiento (ß = 1.23, 95% CI 0.27 a 2.19). Un menor bienestar fue predicho por el homicidio de algún miembro de la familia (ß = −1.69, 95% CI −3.06 a −0.32), haber sido secuestrado (ß = −1.67, 95% CI −3.19 a −0.15), haber estado próximo a la muerte (ß = −1.38, 95% CI −2.70 a −0.06), y estar en el país de acogida ≥2 años (ß = −1.60, 95% CI −3.05 a −0.14). En Uganda, después de la intervención, haber sido secuestrado predijo un aumento de los síntomas (ß =2.11, 95% CI 0.58 a 3.65), y la falta de refugio (ß = −2.51, 95% CI −4.44 a −0.58) y la violencia doméstica predijo un menor bienestar (ß = −1.36, 95% CI −2.67 a −0.05).Conclusión: Muchos participantes se adaptan a la adversidad, pero los factores contextuales juegan un papel crítico en determinar las trayectorias de la salud mental.

Can we mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation using behavioural activation? Long-term results of the UK BASIL urgent public health COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial and living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural and cognitive interventions remain credible approaches in addressing loneliness and depression. There was a need to rapidly generate and assimilate trial-based data during COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a parallel pilot RCT of behavioural activation (a brief behavioural intervention) for depression and loneliness (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation, the BASIL-C19 trial ISRCTN94091479). We also assimilate these data in a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021298788) of cognitive and/or behavioural interventions. METHODS: Participants (≥65 years) with long-term conditions were computer randomised to behavioural activation (n=47) versus care as usual (n=49). Primary outcome was PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes included loneliness (De Jong Scale). Data from the BASIL-C19 trial were included in a metanalysis of depression and loneliness. FINDINGS: The 12 months adjusted mean difference for PHQ-9 was -0.70 (95% CI -2.61 to 1.20) and for loneliness was -0.39 (95% CI -1.43 to 0.65).The BASIL-C19 living systematic review (12 trials) found short-term reductions in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.31, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.11) and loneliness (SMD=-0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27). There were few long-term trials, but there was evidence of some benefit (loneliness SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; depression SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.07). DISCUSSION: We delivered a pilot trial of a behavioural intervention targeting loneliness and depression; achieving long-term follow-up. Living meta-analysis provides strong evidence of short-term benefit for loneliness and depression for cognitive and/or behavioural approaches. A fully powered BASIL trial is underway. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Scalable behavioural and cognitive approaches should be considered as population-level strategies for depression and loneliness on the basis of a living systematic review.

Mental health promotion and protection relating to key life events and transitions in adulthood: a rapid systematic review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: During the decades representing working-age adulthood, most people will experience one or several significant life events or transitions. These may present a challenge to mental health. AIM: The primary aim of this rapid systematic review of systematic reviews was to summarise available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to promote and protect mental health relating to four key life events and transitions: pregnancy and early parenthood, bereavement, unemployment, and housing problems. This review was conducted to inform UK national policy on mental health support. METHODS: We searched key databases for systematic reviews of interventions for working-age adults (19 to 64 years old) who had experienced or were at risk of experiencing one of four key life events. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers in duplicate, as were full-text manuscripts of relevant records. We assessed the quality of included reviews and extracted data on the characteristics of each literature review. We prioritised high quality, recent systematic reviews for more detailed data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: The search and screening of 3997 titles/abstracts and 239 full-text papers resulted in 134 relevant studies, 68 of which were included in a narrative synthesis. Evidence was strongest and of the highest quality for interventions to support women during pregnancy and after childbirth. For example, we found benefits of physical activity and psychological therapy for outcomes relating to mental health after birth. There was high quality evidence of positive effects of online bereavement interventions and psychological interventions on symptoms of grief, post-traumatic stress, and depression. Evidence was inconclusive and of lower quality for a range of other bereavement interventions, unemployment support interventions, and housing interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst evidence based mental health prevention and promotion is available during pregnancy and early parenthood and for bereavement, it is unclear how best to support adults experiencing job loss, unemployment, and housing problems.

Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.

BACKGROUND: Research and clinical outcomes that matter to people with lived experience can significantly differ from those outcomes studied by researchers. To inform a future Cochrane review of suicide and self-harm prevention interventions, we aimed to work with young people with relevant lived experience to agree on priority outcomes. DESIGN: Four participatory codesign workshops were completed across two sites (New Zealand, United Kingdom) with 28 young people in total. We iteratively adapted the methods over the course of the study. RESULTS: 'Improved coping' and 'safer/more accepting environment to disclose' were the final top-rated outcomes. 'Reduction of self-harm' was considered a low priority as it could be misleading, stigmatizing and was considered a secondary consequence of other improvements. In contrast to typical research outcomes, young people emphasized the diversity of experience, the dynamic nature of improvement and holistic and asset-based framing. Methodologically, dialogue using design materials (personas) to thematically explore outcomes was effective in overcoming the initial challenge of disparate quantitative ratings. DISCUSSION: The results will directly inform the development of a Cochrane review, enabling identification of whether and how outcomes of most importance to young people are measured in trials. Rather than producing discrete measurable outcomes that could be easily added to the systematic review, the young people challenged the academic conceptualization of outcomes, with implications for future evidence synthesis and intervention research, and for future codesign. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Young people with lived experience were codesigners of the outcomes, and their feedback informed iterative changes to the study methods.

Preventing the mental health consequences of war in refugee populations.

The refugee experience is associated with several potentially traumatic events that increase the risk of developing mental health consequences, including worsening of subjective wellbeing and quality of life, and risk of developing mental disorders. Here we present actions that countries hosting forcibly displaced refugees may implement to decrease exposure to potentially traumatic stressors, enhance subjective wellbeing and prevent the onset of mental disorders. A first set of actions refers to the development of reception conditions aiming to decrease exposure to post-migration stressors, and a second set of actions refers to the implementation of evidence-based psychological interventions aimed at reducing stress, preventing the development of mental disorders and enhancing subjective wellbeing.

Development of a core outcome set for multimorbidity trials in low/middle-income countries (COSMOS): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: 'Multimorbidity' describes the presence of two or more long-term conditions, which can include communicable, non-communicable diseases, and mental disorders. The rising global burden from multimorbidity is well documented, but trial evidence for effective interventions in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. Selection of appropriate outcomes is fundamental to trial design to ensure cross-study comparability, but there is currently no agreement on a core outcome set (COS) to include in trials investigating multimorbidity specifically in LMICs. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two COSs for trials of interventions to prevent and treat multimorbidity in LMIC settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following methods recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, the development of these two COSs will occur in parallel in three stages: (1) generation of a long list of potential outcomes for inclusion; (2) two-round online Delphi surveys and (3) consensus meetings. First, to generate an initial list of outcomes, we will conduct a systematic review of multimorbidity intervention and prevention trials and interviews with people living with multimorbidity and their caregivers in LMICs. Outcomes will be classified using an outcome taxonomy. Two-round Delphi surveys will be used to elicit importance scores for these outcomes from people living with multimorbidity, caregivers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and researchers in LMICs. Finally, consensus meetings including all of these stakeholders will be held to agree outcomes for inclusion in the two COSs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Research Governance Committee of the Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK (HSRGC/2020/409/D:COSMOS). Each participating country/research group will obtain local ethics board approval. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. We will disseminate findings through peer-reviewed open access publications, and presentations at global conferences selected to reach a wide range of LMIC stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTATION NUMBER: CRD42020197293.

Early pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and debilitating condition. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed with the aim to prevent or mitigate it. These interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability, given that not all individuals exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. There are different possible approaches to preventing PTSD; universal prevention is aimed at individuals at risk of developing PTSD on the basis of having been exposed to a traumatic event, irrespective of whether they are showing signs of psychological difficulties. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of PTSD in adults exposed to a traumatic event. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. In a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies which considered eight interventions (hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega-3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare enteral formula, Oxepa enteral formula and 5-hydroxytryptophan) and involved 2023 participants, with a single trial contributing 1244 participants. Eight studies enrolled participants from emergency departments or trauma centres or similar settings. Participants were exposed to a range of both intentional and unintentional traumatic events. Five studies considered participants in the context of intensive care units with traumatic events consisting of severe physical illness. Our concerns about risk of bias in the included studies were mostly due to high attrition and possible selective reporting. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: hydrocortisone versus placebo, but limited to secondary outcomes; and propranolol versus placebo. No study compared hydrocortisone to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, serious inconsistency amongst the studies' results, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (SMD -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.61 to 0.59; I2 = 83%; 3 studies, 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study provided data on dropout rates due to side effects at three months post-traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective than placebo in reducing the probability of experiencing PTSD at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92; 3 studies, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability or quality of life.  Only one study compared gabapentin to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event, with inconclusive evidence in terms of both PTSD severity and probability of experiencing PTSD, because of imprecision of the effect estimate, serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (very low-certainty evidence). We found no data on dropout rates due to side effects, functional disability or quality of life. For the remaining comparisons, the available data are inconclusive or missing in terms of PTSD severity reduction and dropout rates due to adverse events. No study assessed functional disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides uncertain evidence only regarding the use of hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega-3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare formula, Oxepa formula, or 5-hydroxytryptophan as universal PTSD prevention strategies. Future research might benefit from larger samples, better reporting of side effects and inclusion of quality of life and functioning measures.

Effectiveness of a WHO self-help psychological intervention for preventing mental disorders among Syrian refugees in Turkey: a randomized controlled trial.

Refugees are at high risk of developing mental disorders. There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that psychological interventions can prevent the onset of mental disorders in this group. We assessed the effectiveness of a self-help psychological intervention developed by the World Health Organization, called Self-Help Plus, in preventing the development of mental disorders among Syrian refugees experiencing psychological distress in Turkey. A two-arm, assessor-masked RCT was conducted in two Turkish areas. Eligible participants were adult Syrian refugees experiencing psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire ≥3), but without a diagnosis of mental disorder. They were randomly assigned either to the Self-Help Plus arm (consisting of Self-Help Plus combined with Enhanced Care as Usual, ECAU) or to ECAU only in a 1:1 ratio. Self-Help Plus was delivered in a group format by two facilitators over five sessions. The primary outcome measure was the presence of any mental disorder assessed by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview at six-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the presence of mental disorders at post-intervention, and psychological distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, personally identified psychological outcomes, functional impairment, subjective well-being, and quality of life at post-intervention and six-month follow-up. Between October 1, 2018 and November 30, 2019, 1,186 refugees were assessed for inclusion. Five hundred forty-four people were ineligible, and 642 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either Self-Help Plus (N=322) or ECAU (N=320). Self-Help Plus participants were significantly less likely to have any mental disorders at six-month follow-up compared to the ECAU group (21.69% vs. 40.73%; Cramer's V = 0.205, p<0.001, risk ratio: 0.533, 95% CI: 0.408-0.696). Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that Self-Help Plus was not effective immediately post-intervention, but was associated with beneficial effects at six-month follow-up in terms of symptoms of depression, personally identified psychological outcomes, and quality of life. This is the first prevention RCT ever conducted among refugees experiencing psychological distress but without a mental disorder. Self-Help Plus was found to be an effective strategy for preventing the onset of mental disorders. Based on these findings, this low-intensity self-help psychological intervention could be scaled up as a public health strategy to prevent mental disorders in refugee populations exposed to ongoing adversities.

Predicting relapse or recurrence of depression: systematic review of prognostic models.

BACKGROUND: Relapse and recurrence of depression are common, contributing to the overall burden of depression globally. Accurate prediction of relapse or recurrence while patients are well would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may effectively guide the allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. AIMS: To review prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults with remitted major depressive disorder. METHOD: We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2021. We included development and external validation studies of multivariable prognostic models. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible prognostic model studies (11 unique prognostic models): 8 model development-only studies, 3 model development and external validation studies and 1 external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available and meta-analysis was therefore not necessary. Eleven out of the 12 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias and none examined clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high risk of bias of the included studies, poor predictive performance and limited external validation of the models identified, presently available clinical prediction models for relapse and recurrence of depression are not yet sufficiently developed for deploying in clinical settings. There is a need for improved prognosis research in this clinical area and future studies should conform to best practice methodological and reporting guidelines.

Digital interventions in mental health: evidence syntheses and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations provide evidence on whether or not digital interventions offer value for money, based on their costs and outcomes relative to the costs and outcomes of alternatives. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate and summarise published economic studies about digital interventions across different technologies, therapies, comparators and mental health conditions; (2) synthesise clinical evidence about digital interventions for an exemplar mental health condition; (3) construct an economic model for the same exemplar mental health condition using the previously synthesised clinical evidence; and (4) consult with stakeholders about how they understand and assess the value of digital interventions. METHODS: We completed four work packages: (1) a systematic review and quality assessment of economic studies about digital interventions; (2) a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; (3) an economic model and value-of-information analysis on digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder; and (4) a series of knowledge exchange face-to-face and digital seminars with stakeholders. RESULTS: In work package 1, we reviewed 76 economic evaluations: 11 economic models and 65 within-trial analyses. Although the results of the studies are not directly comparable because they used different methods, the overall picture suggests that digital interventions are likely to be cost-effective, compared with no intervention and non-therapeutic controls, whereas the value of digital interventions compared with face-to-face therapy or printed manuals is unclear. In work package 2, we carried out two network meta-analyses of 20 randomised controlled trials of digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder with a total of 2350 participants. The results were used to inform our economic model, but when considered on their own they were inconclusive because of the very wide confidence intervals. In work package 3, our decision-analytic model found that digital interventions for generalised anxiety disorder were associated with lower net monetary benefit than medication and face-to-face therapy, but greater net monetary benefit than non-therapeutic controls and no intervention. Value for money was driven by clinical outcomes rather than by intervention costs, and a value-of-information analysis suggested that uncertainty in the treatment effect had the greatest value (£12.9B). In work package 4, stakeholders identified several areas of benefits and costs of digital interventions that are important to them, including safety, sustainability and reducing waiting times. Four factors may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing patient choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial uncertainty around effect estimates of digital interventions compared with alternatives. This uncertainty was driven by the small number of studies informing most comparisons, the small samples in some of these studies and the studies' high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Digital interventions may offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or 'doing something non-therapeutic' (e.g. monitoring or having a general discussion), but their added value compared with medication, face-to-face therapy and printed manuals is uncertain. Clinical outcomes rather than intervention costs drive 'value for money'. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to develop digital interventions that are more effective, rather than just cheaper, than their alternatives. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105837. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Digital interventions are activities accessed via technology platforms (e.g. computers, smartphones and virtual reality) that can improve users' mental health and reduce addiction problems. To assess whether or not digital interventions offer 'value for money', we needed to compare their costs and outcomes with the costs and outcomes of alternatives, such as face-to-face therapy and medication. This was done through economic evaluations. This project consisted of four work packages. In work package 1, we reviewed 76 published economic evaluations of digital interventions for different mental health and addiction problems. We could not directly compare their results because of differences in the methods that were used, but the overall picture suggested that digital interventions could offer good value for money as an alternative to 'doing nothing' or simply monitoring someone or giving them general information. The picture was unclear when digital interventions were compared with face-to-face therapy. In work package 2, we pooled research studies that evaluated the outcomes of digital interventions in reducing anxiety and worry; the results were inconclusive because we were uncertain about the differences in outcomes between digital interventions and alternatives. In work package 3, an economic model suggested that value for money in digital interventions is driven by how good they are and not by how much they cost. In work package 4, we presented our methods and results to service users, mental health professionals and researchers who wanted to know more about the value of digital interventions for specific groups (e.g. children and older adults) and for outcomes other than reducing symptoms (e.g. reducing waiting times for treatment and improving attendance for therapy). Finally, the stakeholders highlighted four factors that may influence their decisions to use digital interventions, other than costs and outcomes: increasing choice, reaching underserved populations, enabling continuous care and accepting the 'inevitability of going digital'.