Psychotherapeutic Interventions to Improve Psychological Adjustment in Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

Background: International clinical practice guidelines highlight the importance of improving the psychological and mental health care of patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Psychological interventions can promote adherence to the demands of diabetes self-care, promoting high quality of life and wellbeing. Methods: A systematic review was carried out to determine whether psychological treatments with a specific focus on emotional management have an impact on glycemic control and variables related to psychological adjustment. Comprehensive literature searches of PubMed Medline, Psycinfo, Cochrane Database, Web of Science, and Open Grey Repository databases were conducted, from inception to November 2019 and were last updated in December 2020. Finally, eight articles met inclusion criteria. Results: Results showed that the management of emotions was effective in improving the psychological adjustment of patients with T1DM when carried out by psychologists. However, the evidence regarding the improvement of glycemic control was not entirely clear. When comparing adolescent and adult populations, findings yielded slightly better results in adolescents. Conclusions: More rigorous studies are needed to establish what emotional interventions might increase glycemic control in this population.

Effectiveness of online interventions in preventing depression: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Although evidence exists for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in preventing depression, little is known about its prevention through online interventions. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of online interventions in preventing depression in heterogeneous populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that will be identified through searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, WOS, Scopus, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register . We will also search the reference lists provided in relevant studies and reviews. Experts in the field will be contacted to obtain more references. Two independent reviewers will assess the eligibility criteria of all articles, extract data and determine their risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration Tool). Baseline depression will be required to have been discarded through standardised interviews or validated self-reports with standard cut-off points. The outcomes will be the incidence of new cases of depression and/or the reduction of depressive symptoms as measured by validated instruments. Pooled standardised mean differences will be calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity and publication bias will be estimated. Predefined sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be performed. If heterogeneity is relevant, random-effect meta-regression will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and will be presented at a professional conference. Ethical assessment is not required as we will search and assess existing sources of literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014014804; Results.

Development of the therapeutic language coding system (SICOLENTE): Reliability and construct validity.

Since the use of language is a core aspect of psychotherapy, its study requires instruments that allow for further research. The aim of this study is to present an observational instrument capable of analyzing the language used in psychotherapeutic settings, both by therapists and clients. The SICOLENTE instrument was applied to two different samples: The Three Approaches to Psychotherapy film and a naturalistic sample. 7710 utterances from 31 sessions (three from the demonstration film and 28 from a naturalistic setting) were coded. Two studies were conducted: in the first study, inter and intra coder reliability (dimension and category levels) and Generalizability theory analyzes were assessed, whilst in the second study, construct validity was tested with several hypotheses. The final instrument resulted in 20 categories with three dimensions: Conversational Act (7 categories), Therapeutic topic (6 categories) and Content (7 categories). The three dimensions showed excellent inter and intra coder reliability and the generalizability coefficients were excellent. Out of the 24 validity hypothesis proposed,19 were accepted. The finding suggests that the SICOLENTE is a reliable and valid instrument that can be applied to investigate the performance of various theoretical models. Its three dimensional structure gives it the flexibility to be able to carry out macroscopic or microscopic language research.

A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months. RESULTS: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

Effectiveness of Psychological and/or Educational Interventions in the Prevention of Anxiety: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.

Importance: To our knowledge, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied populations. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varied population types. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on literature searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, OpenGrey, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources from inception to March 7, 2017. Study Selection: A search was performed of randomized clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of preventive psychological and/or educational interventions for anxiety in varying populations free of anxiety at baseline as measured using validated instruments. There was no setting or language restriction. Eligibility criteria assessment was conducted by 2 of us. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration's tool) were performed by 2 of us. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effect models. Heterogeneity was explored by random-effects meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of new cases of anxiety disorders or reduction of anxiety symptoms as measured by validated instruments. Results: Of the 3273 abstracts reviewed, 131 were selected for full-text review, and 29 met the inclusion criteria, representing 10 430 patients from 11 countries on 4 continents. Meta-analysis calculations were based on 36 comparisons. The pooled SMD was -0.31 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.21; P < .001) and heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 61.1%; 95% CI, 44% to 73%). There was evidence of publication bias, but the effect size barely varied after adjustment (SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.17; P < .001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of effect size results. A meta-regression including 5 variables explained 99.6% of between-study variability, revealing an association between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (ß = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.11]; P = .005) and a lower sample size (lg) (ß = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.23]; P = .001). No association was observed with risk of bias, family physician providing intervention, and use of standardized interviews as outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Psychological and/or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention in all populations evaluated. Although more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxiety prevention programs should be further developed and implemented.

Effectiveness of Psychological and Educational Interventions to Prevent Depression in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although evidence exists for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to prevent the onset of depression, little is known about its prevention in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression in nondepressed primary care attendees. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey Repository, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other sources up to May 2016. At least 2 reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) using random-effects models. RESULTS: We selected 14 studies (7,365 patients) that met the inclusion criteria, 13 of which were valid to perform a meta-analysis. Most of the interventions had a cognitive-behavioral orientation, and in only 4 RCTs were the intervention clinicians primary care staff. The pooled SMD was -0.163 (95%CI, -0.256 to -0.070; P = .001). The risk of bias and the heterogeneity (I2 = 20.6%) were low, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Meta-regression detected no association between SMD and follow-up times or SMD and risk of bias. Subgroup analysis suggested greater effectiveness when the RCTs used care as usual as the comparator compared with those using placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological and educational interventions to prevent depression had a modest though statistically significant preventive effect in primary care. Further RCTs using placebo or active comparators are needed.

Intervention to Prevent Major Depression in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Not enough is known about universal prevention of depression in adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to prevent major depression. DESIGN: Multicenter, cluster randomized trial with sites randomly assigned to usual care or an intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01151982). SETTING: 10 primary care centers in each of 7 cities in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Two primary care physicians (PCPs) and 5236 nondepressed adult patients were randomly sampled from each center; 3326 patients consented and were eligible to participate. INTERVENTION: For each patient, PCPs communicated individual risk for depression and personal predictors of risk and developed a psychosocial program tailored to prevent depression. MEASUREMENTS: New cases of major depression, assessed every 6 months for 18 months. RESULTS: At 18 months, 7.39% of patients in the intervention group (95% CI, 5.85% to 8.95%) developed major depression compared with 9.40% in the control (usual care) group (CI, 7.89% to 10.92%) (absolute difference, -2.01 percentage points [CI, -4.18 to 0.16 percentage points]; P = 0.070). Depression incidence was lower in the intervention centers in 5 cities and similar between intervention and control centers in 2 cities. LIMITATION: Potential self-selection bias due to nonconsenting patients. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk for depression implemented by PCPs provided a modest but nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of major depression. Additional study of this approach may be warranted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Institute of Health Carlos III.

Preventing the onset of major depression based on the level and profile of risk of primary care attendees: protocol of a cluster randomised trial (the predictD-CCRT study).

BACKGROUND: The 'predictD algorithm' provides an estimate of the level and profile of risk of the onset of major depression in primary care attendees. This gives us the opportunity to develop interventions to prevent depression in a personalized way. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a new intervention, personalized and implemented by family physicians (FPs), to prevent the onset of episodes of major depression. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), with cluster assignment by health center and two parallel arms. Two interventions will be applied by FPs, usual care versus the new intervention predictD-CCRT. The latter has four components: a training workshop for FPs; communicating the level and profile of risk of depression; building up a tailored bio-psycho-family-social intervention by FPs to prevent depression; offering a booklet to prevent depression; and activating and empowering patients. We will recruit a systematic random sample of 3286 non-depressed adult patients (1643 in each trial arm), nested in 140 FPs and 70 health centers from 7 Spanish cities. All patients will be evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The level and profile of risk of depression will be communicated to patients by the FPs in the intervention practices at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome will be the cumulative incidence of major depression (measured by CIDI each 6 months) over 18 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (SF-12 and EuroQol), and measurements of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The inferences will be made at patient level. We shall undertake an intention-to-treat effectiveness analysis and will handle missing data using multiple imputations. We will perform multi-level logistic regressions and will adjust for the probability of the onset of major depression at 12 months measured at baseline as well as for unbalanced variables if appropriate. The economic evaluation will be approached from two perspectives, societal and health system. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT of universal primary prevention for depression in adults and the first to test a personalized intervention implemented by FPs. We discuss possible biases as well as other limitations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01151982.