Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur J Epidemiol ; 39(6): 571-586, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38551715

RESUMO

Functional Disorders (FD) refer to persistent somatic symptoms caused by changes in the functioning of bodily processes. Previous findings suggest that FD are highly prevalent, but overall prevalence rates for FD in European countries are scarce. Therefore, the aim of the present work was to estimate the point prevalence of FD in adult general populations. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to June 2022. A generalized linear mixed-effects model for statistical aggregation was used for statistical analyses. A standardized quality assessment was performed, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 136 studies were included and systematically synthesized resulting in 8 FD diagnoses. The large majority of studies was conducted in the Northern Europe, Spain, and Italy. The overall point prevalence for FD was 8.78% (95% CI from 7.61 to 10.10%) across Europe, with the highest overall point prevalence in Norway (17.68%, 95% CI from 9.56 to 30.38%) and the lowest in Denmark (3.68%, 95% CI from 2.08 to 6.43%). Overall point prevalence rates for specific FD diagnoses resulted in 20.27% (95% CI from 16.51 to 24.63%) for chronic pain, 9.08% (95% CI from 7.31 to 11.22%) for irritable bowel syndrome, and 8.45% (95% CI from 5.40 to 12.97%) for chronic widespread pain. FD are highly prevalent across Europe, which is in line with data worldwide. Rates implicate the need to set priorities to ensure adequate diagnosis and care paths to FD patients by care givers and policy makers.


Assuntos
Síndrome do Intestino Irritável , Humanos , Prevalência , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/epidemiologia , Dor Crônica/epidemiologia
2.
Int J Behav Med ; 2024 Jan 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38228869

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The systematic aggregation of research on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) needs an update. Although meta-analyses evaluating interventions typically focus on symptom reduction, they should also consider indicators of treatment acceptability, e.g., drop-out rates. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating CBT in adults with CFS compared to inactive and non-specific control groups were included. First, efficacy was examined, considering fatigue, depression, anxiety, and perceived health. Secondly, drop-out rates through different trial stages were analyzed: Non-completion of all mandatory sessions, drop-out (primary study definition), treatment refusal (non-starters), and average of sessions completed. RESULT: We included 15 RCTs with 2015 participants. CBT was more effective than controls in fatigue (g = -0.52, 95%CI -0.69 to -0.35), perceived health, depression, and anxiety at post-treatment. At long-term follow-up the effects were maintained for fatigue and anxiety. Rates of non-completion (22%, 95%CI 3-71), drop-out (15%, 95%CI 9-25), and treatment refusal (7%, 95%CI 3-15) were relatively low, with a high average proportion of sessions completed. Total time of therapy moderated the effect on fatigue, while the number of sessions moderated the effect on perceived health. Fatigue severity influenced adherence. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that CBT for CFS is effective in reducing fatigue, fatigue related impairment, and severity of depression and anxiety. Conclusions on efficacy at follow-ups are still limited. However, adherence is high in CBT. The results may help to inform clinical practice. Future research should focus on examining the maintenance of effects, while also emphasizing the importance of treatment acceptance.

3.
Front Psychiatry ; 14: 1160908, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37151971

RESUMO

Objective: Bodily distress, i.e., somatoform disorders and associated functional somatic syndromes, is highly prevalent, often persistent and highly disabling. It has been proposed that "third wave" therapies may be beneficial variants of cognitive behavioral treatments. However, evidence on their efficacy is scarce. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of "third wave" psychotherapies (mindfulness-based cognitive therapy [MBCT], mindfulness-based stress reduction [MBSR], and acceptance and commitment therapy [ACT]) in adults with bodily distress. Method: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) treating adults with bodily distress using MBCT, MBSR, and ACT compared to inactive and non-specific control groups. A random effects model was used. The primary outcome was somatic symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were degrees of depression and of anxiety, health anxiety, perceived health status, mindfulness, psychological inflexibility, and pain acceptance. Results: Sixteen RCTs with 1,288 participants were included in the analysis (k = 4 MBCT, k = 7 MBSR, k = 5 ACT; k = 7 fibromyalgia, k = 5 irritable bowel syndrome, k = 1 chronic fatigue syndrome, k = 2 bodily distress, k = 1 medically unexplained symptoms). However, not all studies provided data for each of the relevant outcomes. The analyses revealed that "third wave" therapies were more effective than control conditions in reducing somatic symptom severity (k = 15, n = 1,100, g = -0.51, 95%CI -0.69; -0.32). Heterogeneity was moderate (I 2 = 52.8%, 95%CI 15.1 to 73.8). Effects for secondary outcomes were small to moderate with varying degrees of heterogeneity. We did not find differences between the different therapy approaches (mindfulness- vs. acceptance-based therapies); neither therapy dosis (i.e., total duration of therapy sessions) nor number of sessions were significant moderators of efficacy. Conclusions: The therapies addressing mindfulness and acceptance proved to be more effective than control conditions. Hence, they are promising treatment approaches for bodily distress. However, there is still need for research on which patient groups may benefit from these psychological approaches. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/g7hby, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/4RZGC.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA