Mental health and psychosocial support strategies in highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks of substantial public concern: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Acute disease outbreaks such as the COVID-19 pandemic cause a high burden of psychological distress in people worldwide. Interventions to enable people to better cope with such distress should be based on the best available evidence. We therefore performed a scoping review to systematically identify and summarize the available literature of interventions that target the distress of people in the face of highly contagious disease outbreaks. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science (January 2000 to May 7, 2020), and reference lists were systematically searched and screened by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies investigating the effects of psychological interventions before, during, and after outbreaks of highly contagious emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, Ebola, or COVID-19 were included. Study effects were grouped (e.g. for healthcare professionals, community members, people at risk) and intervention contents at the individual and organizational level summarized. We assessed the level of evidence using a modified scheme from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. RESULTS: Of 4030 records found, 19 studies were included (two RCTs). Most interventions were delivered during-exposure and face-to-face, focused on healthcare workers and crisis personnel, and combined psychoeducation with training of coping strategies. Based on two high-quality studies, beneficial effects were reported for resilience factors (e.g. positive cognitive appraisal) and professional attitudes of healthcare workers, with mixed findings for mental health (e.g. depression). Across all studies, there was positive qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators. We identified seven ongoing studies mostly using online- and mobile-based deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: There is preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of interventions to enable people to better cope with the distress of highly contagious emerging disease outbreaks. Besides the need for more high-quality studies, the summarized evidence may inform decision makers to plan interventions during the current pandemic and to develop pandemic preparedness plans.

Discrepancies from registered protocols and spin occurred frequently in randomized psychotherapy trials-A meta-epidemiologic study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between trial registration, trial discrepancy from registered protocol, and spin in nonpharmacological trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Recent psychotherapy trials on depression (2015-2018) were analyzed regarding their registration status and its relationship to discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes and to spin (discrepancy between the nonsignificant finding in a study and an overly beneficial interpretation of the effect of the treatment). RESULTS: A total of 196 trials were identified, of which 78 (40%) had been registered prospectively and 56 (29%) had been registered retrospectively. In 102 (76%) of 134 registered trials, discrepancies between trial and protocol were present. Of 72 trials with a nonsignificant difference between treatments for the primary outcome, 68 trials (94%) showed spin. Discrepancies from protocol were less frequent in prospectively than in retrospectively registered trials (odds ratio= 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-0.52), but regarding the amount of spin, there was no difference between prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (rb = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.19) or between registered and unregistered trials (rb = -0.22, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.08). CONCLUSION: Protocol discrepancies and spin have a high prevalence in psychotherapy outcome research. The results show no relation between registration and spin, but prospective registration may prevent discrepancies from protocol.