Effects of time management interventions on mental health and wellbeing factors: A protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Poor employee mental health and wellbeing are highly prevalent and costly. Time-related factors such as work intensification and perceptions of time poverty or pressure pose risks to employee health and wellbeing. While reviews suggest that there are positive associations between time management behavior and wellbeing, there is limited rigorous and systematic research examining the effectiveness of time management interventions on wellbeing in the workplace. A thorough review is needed to synthesize time management interventions and their effectiveness to promote employee mental health and wellbeing. METHOD: A systematic search will be conducted using the following databases: PsychINFO via OVID (1806-Present), Web of Science, Scopus via Elsevier (1976-Present), Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library via Wiley (1992-Present), and MEDLINE via OVID (1946-Present). The review will include experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluate the effects of time management interventions on wellbeing outcomes on healthy adults in a workplace context. Only studies in English will be included. Two authors will independently perform the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each study included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data will be critically appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Depending on the data, a meta-analysis or a narrative synthesis will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in the development of this protocol. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD4202125715). DISCUSSION: This review will provide systematic evidence on the effects of time management interventions on wellbeing outcomes in the workplace. It will contribute to our understanding of how time management approaches may help to address growing concerns for employee mental health and wellbeing.

The effectiveness of savouring interventions on well-being in adult clinical populations: A protocol for a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Savouring interventions aim to amplify the intensity and duration of positive feelings and positive affect. Research has shown that the potential benefits of savouring include the promotion of psychological well-being and diminution of negative affective states. Savouring strategies may be particularly useful amongst clinical populations in changing biobehavioural processes which can strengthen an individual's propensity to exert control over how to develop, intensify and promote psychological well-being, while simultaneously mitigating negative affective states. This paper outlines a protocol for a systematic review that will be used to identify, critically appraise and synthesise findings of studies examining the effectiveness of savouring interventions in adult clinical populations. Savouring interventions will be defined broadly, operationalised as any savouring strategy focusing on past, present or future events or experiences whereby participants are instructed to attend to and amplify positive affect relating to same. The goal of our review is to include the extent of the literature on this topic and contribute to the overall evidence to support savouring interventions. METHODS: This protocol is carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocols Guidelines. The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023404857). The databases PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Scopus will be searched alongside a search of grey literature. An examination of the first 200 papers on Google Scholar will also be done to identify relevant papers. Studies describing randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of savouring interventions as described within this article on adult clinical populations will be included in the review. Outcomes will include well-being, quality of life, depression, anxiety or stress. Study selection and data extraction will be completed by three independent reviewers to reduce risk of bias. Interrater percentage agreement and interrater reliability will be reported on same. The quality of studies will be assessed using criteria based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the Jadad scale. A narrative synthesis with tables of study characteristics will be provided. Separate considerations of the three time perspectives of savouring interventions (past-focused, present-focused, and future-focused) will also be described. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will provide important clinical insights into the potential efficacy of savouring interventions when working with adult clinical samples.

Factors influencing the effectiveness of nature-based interventions (NBIs) aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing: Protocol of an umbrella review.

Several systematic reviews support the use of nature-based interventions (NBIs) as a mechanism of enhancing mental health and wellbeing. However, the available evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions is fragmentary and mixed. The heterogeneity of existing evidence and significant fragmentation of knowledge within the field make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of NBIs. This mixed method umbrella review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of nature-based interventions through a summative review of existing published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search in PsycINFO, PubMed, Greenfile, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Environment Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Health Policy Reference Centre and Google Scholar will be performed from inception to present. The search strategy will aim to find published systematic reviews of nature-based interventions (NBIs) where improving health and wellbeing is an explicit goal. This is a mixed method review, and systematic reviews with both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis will be considered. Two authors will independently perform the literature search, record screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of each included systematic review and meta-analysis. The individual qualitative and quantitative syntheses will be conducted in parallel and combined in an overarching narrative synthesis. The quantitative evidence will be used to assess the strength and direction of the effect of nature-based interventions on mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Evidence drawn from qualitative studies will be analysed and synthesised to understand the various pathways to engagement, involvement process and experiential factors that may mediate experiences. The risk of bias of the systematic reviews will be assessed using a 16-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklist. Trail registration: This review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022329179).

The effects of positive psychology interventions in Arab countries: A systematic review.

While there is evidence for the effects of positive psychology interventions (PPIs) in the Western world, we know little about their effects on Arab cultures. This review aimed to assess the effects of PPIs on well-being and mental health across Arab countries. Systematic searches of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies investigating PPIs in Arabia were conducted in six English and Arabic databases from the inception of positive psychology in 1998 to 28 February 2022. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. The protocol was published in the BMJ Open. Forty-four studies from 10 Arab countries (n = 3598 participants) were included. Of these, 12 were RCTs and 32 were quasi-experimental. The studies mainly focused on adults (73%) and healthy populations (86%). PPIs included mindfulness, positive thinking, strengths, hope, optimism, self-compassion, positive traits, and multiple PPIs. Nearly all studies (91%) mentioned cultural adaptation; however, little detail was given. This is the first review in Arabia. PPIs appear to be effective for promoting well-being and reducing mental health issues. However, there were some risks of bias concerns. Future research should include younger and clinical populations, using larger samples and providing more details about adaptation.

Natural or Urban Campus Walks and Vitality in University Students: Exploratory Qualitative Findings from a Pilot Randomised Controlled Study.

Despite extensive evidence of the restorative effects of nature, the potential vitalizing effects of connecting with nature are yet understudied, particularly in higher education settings. University students face high levels of stress and anxiety, and may benefit from nature-based interventions that enhance positive states such as vitality. Using preliminary data from a pilot randomized controlled study with qualitative interviews, we explored the psychological experiences associated with a brief walk either in nature or an urban environment in a sample of 13 university students. The qualitative thematic analysis revealed that walking in nature was a more energizing and vitalizing experience than the urban walk. The nature walk was also found to have both affective and cognitive enhancing effects on participants. Our study highlights the usefulness of exploring subjective psychological experiences of interacting with nature, as well as supporting its restorative potential. Implications for further research and interventions are discussed.

Effects of positive psychology interventions in Arab countries: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing volume of published studies on the effects of positive psychology interventions (PPIs), little is known about their effectiveness outside of Western countries, particularly in Arab countries. As the effectiveness of PPIs in this region remains unclear, a systematic review focusing on this area of research can offer a valuable contribution. Here, we present a protocol for the first systematic review that aims to examine the effects of PPIs on increasing well-being, quality of life and resilience and decreasing depression, anxiety and stress for both health and clinical, child and adult populations in Arab countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. A systematic literature search for studies up to 30 April 2021 will be conducted in the following electronic databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Dar Al Mandumah and Al Manhal. Experimental/quasi-experimental quantitative studies evaluating the effects of PPIs on healthy and clinical participants of all ages in the 22 Arab countries will be included. Outcomes will include psychological effects of PPIs on dimensions related to well-being (eg, happiness), quality of life, resilience, depression, anxiety and stress. The risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A narrative synthesis with tables of study characteristics will be provided. A meta-analysis will be included if outcomes allow; in this instance, subgroups analysis will be conducted, depending on the data gathered, to examine differences in effect sizes based on age group, population type, duration of intervention and type of intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for the performance of this systematic review. We intend to publish the study in a peer-reviewed journal and share the findings at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198092.

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews.

AIMS: This research synthesis protocol addresses the question: what is the evidence concerning measurement properties of dental patient reported outcome measures (dPROMs), and regarding the real-world value of dPROMs, and where are the gaps in this evidence? Evidence mapping will systematically examine reviews of quantitative dPROMs used to assess the impact of oral health on the quality of life of dental patients and research participants. Evidence gaps where future research or systematic reviews are required will be identified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This protocol accords with the PRISMA-P guideline. Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RZD3N . Biomedical and grey literature databases will be searched, adapting the same search strategy. Published or unpublished reviews evaluating any dPROM will be considered for inclusion. There will be no restriction by date, setting, or language. AMSTAR2 and ROBIS will evaluate risk of bias. Psychometric criteria will be adapted from COSMIN. Data will be summarised separately for specific populations and conditions. DISCUSSION: The findings will enable clinicians and researchers to identify methodologically robust dPROMs, appropriate for use with relevant populations and conditions. Implications for real-world practice and research will be discussed.

Reactions to treatment debriefing among the participants of a placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of trial participants respond to placebos for a variety of conditions. Despite the common conduct of these trials and the strong emphasis placed on informed consent, very little is known about informing participants about their individual treatment allocation at trial closure. This study aims to address this gap in the literature by exploring treatment beliefs and reactions to feedback about treatment allocation in the participants of a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (RCT). METHODS: Survey of trial participants using a semi-structured questionnaire including close and open-ended questions administered as telephone interviews and postal questionnaires. Trial participants were enrolled in a double-blind placebo-controlled RCT evaluating the effectiveness of corticosteroid for heel pain (ISRCTN36539116). The trial had closed and participants remained blind to treatment allocation. We assessed treatment expectations, the percentage of participants who wanted to be informed about their treatment allocation, their ability to guess and reactions to debriefing. RESULTS: Forty-six (73%) contactable participants responded to our survey. Forty-two were eligible (four participants with bilateral disease were excluded as they had received both treatments). Most (79%) participants did not have any expectations prior to receiving treatment, but many 'hoped' that something would help. Reasons for not having high expectations included the experimental nature of their care and possibility that they may get a placebo. Participants were hopeful because their pain was so severe and because they trusted the staff and services. Most (83%) wanted to be informed about their treatment allocation and study results. Over half (55%) said they could not guess which treatment they had been randomized to, and many of those who attempted a guess were incorrect. Reactions to treatment debriefing were generally positive, including in placebo responders. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that most trial participants want to be informed about their treatment allocation and trial results. Further research is required to develop measure of hope and expectancy and to rigorously evaluate the effects of debriefing prospectively.

Context effects. Powerful therapies or methodological bias?

This article provides an analysis of the way in which placebo effects could be investigated and taken into account, supported by a description of some of the major articles that have been published on this topic. Based on conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues, the authors highlight some of the reasons for current controversies regarding the nature of placebo effects. They suggest the use of the term context effects to overcome some of the negative connotations associated with the term placebo and to highlight the therapeutic nature of the health care context, and they present the major findings and limitations from their systematic review of the therapeutic effects of health care interactions. Recommendations for future research are proposed.

Risk factors for repetition of self-harm: a systematic review of prospective hospital-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm entails high costs to individuals and society in terms of suicide risk, morbidity and healthcare expenditure. Repetition of self-harm confers yet higher risk of suicide and risk assessment of self-harm patients forms a key component of the health care management of self-harm patients. To date, there has been no systematic review published which synthesises the extensive evidence on risk factors for repetition. OBJECTIVE: This review is intended to identify risk factors for prospective repetition of self-harm after an index self-harm presentation, irrespective of suicidal intent. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsychInfo and Scirus were used to search for relevant publications. We included cohort studies which examining factors associated with prospective repetition among those presenting with self-harm to emergency departments. Journal articles, abstracts, letters and theses in any language published up to June 2012 were considered. Studies were quality-assessed and synthesised in narrative form. RESULTS: A total of 129 studies, including 329,001 participants, met our inclusion criteria. Some factors were studied extensively and were found to have a consistent association with repetition. These included previous self-harm, personality disorder, hopelessness, history of psychiatric treatment, schizophrenia, alcohol abuse/dependence, drug abuse/dependence, and living alone. However, the sensitivity values of these measures varied greatly across studies. Psychological risk factors and protective factors have been relatively under-researched but show emerging associations with repetition. Composite risk scales tended to have high sensitivity but poor specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Many risk factors for repetition of self-harm match risk factors for initiation of self-harm, but the most consistent evidence for increased risk of repetition comes from long-standing psychosocial vulnerabilities, rather than characteristics of an index episode. The current review will enhance prediction of self-harm and assist in the efficient allocation of intervention resources.

Informing participants of allocation to placebo at trial closure: postal survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and how investigators of placebo controlled randomised trials inform participants of their treatment allocation at trial closure and to assess barriers to feedback. DESIGN: Postal survey with a semistructured questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: All investigators who published a placebo controlled randomised trial in 2000 in five leading medical journals, and a random sample of 120 trials listed in the national research register database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of investigators who informed participants of their treatment allocation at trial closure, methods for delivering the information, and barriers to unmasking treatment. RESULTS: 45% of investigators informed either all or most participants of their treatment allocation, and 55% did not inform any participant or only informed those who asked. The main reasons for not informing participants were that the investigators never considered this option (40%) or to avoid biasing results at study follow up (24%). CONCLUSION: Further research is required to examine sensitive ways to communicate treatment information to trial participants.