Search

BACKGROUND: Mental ill-health presents a major public health problem. A potential part solution that is receiving increasing attention is computer-delivered psychological therapy, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic as health care systems moved to remote service delivery. However, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) requires active engagement by service users, and low adherence may minimize treatment effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to investigate the acceptability of cCBT to understand implementation issues and maximize potential benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to produce a critical appraisal of published reviews about the acceptability of cCBT for adults. METHODS: An umbrella review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology identified systematic reviews about the acceptability of cCBT for common adult mental disorders. Acceptability was operationalized in terms of uptake of, dropping out from, or completion of cCBT treatment; factors that facilitated or impeded adherence; and reports about user, carer, and health care professional experience and satisfaction with cCBT. Databases were searched using search terms informed by relevant published research. Review selection and quality appraisal were guided by the JBI methodology and the AMSTAR tool and undertaken independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: The systematic searches of databases identified 234 titles, and 9 reviews (covering 151 unique studies) met the criteria. Most studies were comprised of service users with depression, anxiety, or specifically, panic disorder or phobia. Operationalization of acceptability varied across reviews, thereby making it difficult to synthesize results. There was a similar number of guided and unguided cCBT programs; 34% of guided and 36% of unguided users dropped out; and guidance included email, telephone, face-to-face, and discussion forum support. Guided cCBT was completed in full by 8%-74% of the participants, while 94% completed one module and 67%-84% completed some modules. Unguided cCBT was completed in full by 16%-66% of participants, while 95% completed one module and 54%-93% completed some modules. Guided cCBT appeared to be associated with adherence (sustained via telephone). A preference for face-to-face CBT compared to cCBT (particularly for users who reported feeling isolated), internet or computerized delivery problems, negative perceptions about cCBT, low motivation, too busy or not having enough time, and personal circumstances were stated as reasons for dropping out. Yet, some users favored the anonymous nature of cCBT, and the capacity to undertake cCBT in one's own time was deemed beneficial but also led to avoidance of cCBT. There was inconclusive evidence for an association between sociodemographic variables, mental health status, and cCBT adherence or dropping out. Users tended to be satisfied with cCBT, reported improvements in mental health, and recommended cCBT. Overall, the results indicated that service users' preferences were important considerations regarding the use of cCBT. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicated that "one size did not fit all" regarding the acceptability of cCBT and that individual tailoring of cCBT is required in order to increase population reach, uptake, and adherence and therefore, deliver treatment benefits and improve mental health.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

Objective: This research aims to investigate what type of family patterns (specifically attachment, bonding and family functioning) and stressful life events can trigger or protect adolescents from developing suicidal behavior. Methods: For these purposes, a case-control study (adolescents with suicidal behavior vs. paired adolescents with no suicidal behavior) was conducted with one hundred 12 to 17-year-old adolescents (50 controls, 50 cases, 74% females), assessed between 2018 and 2020. Results: Negligent (p < 0.001) or affection-less control bonding (p < 0.001), insecure attachment (p = 0.001) and stressful life events (p < 0.001) revealed to be significant risk factors for suicidal behavior. On the contrary, parents’ care (p < 0.001) and security (p < 0.001) were revealed as protective factors for suicidal behavior. Conclusions: Considering these results, family interventions and improving coping skills seem to be two essential targets for any suicide prevention intervention in adolescents.

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care for Preschoolers (MTFC-P) has thus far only been tested for diminishing behavior problems in the US. This study tested relative efficacy of MTFC-P on multiple outcomes against treatment as usual in the Netherlands (TAU; Study I), and regular foster care (Study II). The sample included 55 children that received MTFC-P, 23 children received TAU and 30 children from regular foster care (RFC). Changes in behavioral and relationship functioning, trauma symptoms, hypothalamic-adrenal-pituitary (HPA-) axis functioning, and caregiving stress were assessed via questionnaires, interviews, and salivary cortisol. Outcomes of Study I were evaluated using a randomized controlled design and quasi-experimental design, outcomes of Study II according to non-equivalent group comparison. No evidence was found for relative efficacy of MTFC-P over TAU. A treatment effect was found on trauma symptoms, in favor of TAU. Outcomes of Study II revealed that whereas caregiving stress and secure base distortions were significantly more severe at baseline in MTFC-P compared to RFC, post treatment differences were no longer significant. However, percentages of symptoms of disinhibited attachment and attachment disorder were nearly equal between groups at baseline, while post treatment percentages indicated significantly more symptoms in MTFC. In addition, results revealed a significant difference in the severity of externalizing problems post treatment, in favor of RFC. The results obtained within this study indicate that children in MTFC-P and usual treatment foster care in the Dutch context improved similarly, thus not showing the same advantages that MTFC-P has demonstrated in the US. Results should be interpreted with caution due to lower than planned power. Findings underscore the challenges of testing novel treatments across contexts with highly different child welfare provisions.

Developmental trauma disorder (DTD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been found to have both shared and unique traumatic antecedents. The present study was an independent replication, with the DTD Structured Interview and the Traumatic Events Screening Instrument administered to 271 children in mental health treatment in six U.S. sites. On an unadjusted basis, DTD (27.3% prevalence, N = 74) and PTSD (40.2% prevalence, N = 109) both were associated with traumatic physical assault or abuse, family violence, emotional abuse, caregiver separation or impairment, and polyvictimization. After controlling for PTSD, DTD was associated emotional abuse, OR = 2.9, 95% CI [1.19, 6.95], and traumatic separation from a primary caregiver, OR = 2.2, 95% CI [1.04. 4.60], both of which also were associated with caregiver impairment, physical assault/abuse, and witnessing family/community violence. Three traumatic antecedents associated with PTSD were not associated with DTD: noninterpersonal trauma, sexual trauma, and traumatic loss. Children exposed to both traumatic victimization and attachment trauma (36.2%) or attachment trauma alone (32.5%) were more likely than children exposed only to victimization (17.5%) or those with no history of victimization or attachment trauma (8.1%) to meet the symptom criteria for DTD, χ²(3, N = 271) = 17.68, p < .001. Study findings replicate and extend prior DTD field trial study results, showing that, although PTSD and DTD share traumatic antecedents, DTD is uniquely associated with traumatic emotional abuse and caregiver separation. Further research is needed to examine how specific trauma types contribute to the risk, course, and severity of DTD.

BACKGROUND: Childhood and adolescent mental health problems are a serious and growing concern worldwide. Research suggests that psychotherapy can have a significant and positive impact on children and adolescents with mental health problems, such as anxiety disorders, depression and conduct disorders. Client feedback tools serve as a method of monitoring clients' progress and providing feedback from clients to therapists during the therapeutic process. These tools may help to enhance clinicians' decision-making by allowing them to adapt their treatment plans as the therapy progresses, resulting in a reduction of treatment failures. Research has shown that client feedback tools have a positive effect on adults' psychotherapy. This review addresses whether feedback tools in child and adolescent therapy could help therapists to better treat their young clients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of client feedback in psychological therapy on child and adolescent mental health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR, Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-) and PsycINFO (1967-) to 3 April 2018. We did not apply any restriction on date, language or publication status to the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared client feedback to no client feedback in psychological therapies for children and adolescents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed references for inclusion eligibility and extracted outcome, risk of bias and study characteristics data into customised forms. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs), or standardised mean differences (SMDs) if different scales were used to measure the same outcome. We used a random-effects model for all analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included six published RCTs, conducted in the USA (5 RCTs) and Israel (1 RCT), with 1097 children and adolescents (11 to 18 years old), in the review.We are very uncertain about the effect of client feedback on improvement of symptoms, as reported by youth in the short term because we considered evidence to be of very low-certainty due to high risk of bias and very serious inconsistency in the effect estimates from the different studies. Similarly, we are very uncertain about the effect of client feedback on treatment acceptability, due to high risk of bias, imprecision in the results, and indirectness of measuring the outcome (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.61; 2 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty).Overall, most studies reported and carried out randomisation and allocation concealment adequately. None of the studies were blinded or attempted to blind participants and personnel and were at high risk of performance bias, and only one study had blind outcome assessors. All of the studies were at high or unclear risk of attrition bias mainly due to poor, non-transparent reporting of participants' flow through the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity of high-quality data and considerable inconsistency in results from different studies, there is currently insufficient evidence to reach any firm conclusions regarding the role of client feedback in psychological therapies for children and adolescents with mental health problems, and further research on this important topic is needed.Future studies should avoid risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, as seen in the studies included in this review. Studies from countries other than the USA are needed, as well as studies including children younger than 10 years.

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is an empirically supported intervention originally developed to treat disruptive behavior problems in children between the ages of 2 and 7 years. Since its creation over 40 years ago, PCIT has been studied internationally with various populations and has been found to be an effective intervention for numerous behavioral and emotional issues. This article summarizes progress in the PCIT literature over the past decade (2006-2017) and outlines future directions for this important work. Recent PCIT research related to treatment effectiveness, treatment components, adaptations for specific populations (age groups, cultural groups, military families, individuals diagnosed with specific disorders, trauma survivors, and the hearing-impaired), format changes (group and home-based), teacher-child interaction training (TCIT), intensive PCIT (I-PCIT), treatment as prevention (for externalizing problems, child maltreatment, and developmental delays), and implementation are discussed.

This paper provides a concise but comprehensive review of research on religion/spirituality (R/S) and both mental health and physical health. It is based on a systematic review of original data-based quantitative research published in peer-reviewed journals between 1872 and 2010, including a few seminal articles published since 2010. First, I provide a brief historical background to set the stage. Then I review research on R/S and mental health, examining relationships with both positive and negative mental health outcomes, where positive outcomes include well-being, happiness, hope, optimism, and gratefulness, and negative outcomes involve depression, suicide, anxiety, psychosis, substance abuse, delinquency/crime, marital instability, and personality traits (positive and negative). I then explain how and why R/S might influence mental health. Next, I review research on R/S and health behaviors such as physical activity, cigarette smoking, diet, and sexual practices, followed by a review of relationships between R/S and heart disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease and dementia, immune functions, endocrine functions, cancer, overall mortality, physical disability, pain, and somatic symptoms. I then present a theoretical model explaining how R/S might influence physical health. Finally, I discuss what health professionals should do in light of these research findings and make recommendations in this regard.

Most developmental work regards adverse developmental experiences as forces that undermine well-being. Here, I present an alternative—or complementary—view, summarizing recent evidence on puberty, endocrinology, cellular aging, and brain connectivity that collectively reveals developmental acceleration in response to contextual adversity. Findings are cast in evolutionary-developmental terms, highlighting the trade-off between accelerated aging and (a) increased morbidity and (b) premature mortality.