Cognitive behavioral interventions for depression and anxiety in adults with neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Milena Gandy, Thomas Woldhuis, Wendy Wu, Marette Youssef, Madelyne A Bisby, Blake F Dear, Andreea I Heriseanu, Amelia J Scott
{"title":"Cognitive behavioral interventions for depression and anxiety in adults with neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Milena Gandy, Thomas Woldhuis, Wendy Wu, Marette Youssef, Madelyne A Bisby, Blake F Dear, Andreea I Heriseanu, Amelia J Scott","doi":"10.1017/S0033291724001995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examined the efficacy of cognitive and behavioral interventions for improving symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults with neurological disorders. A pre-registered systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Neurobite was performed from inception to May 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the efficacy of cognitive and behavioral interventions in treating depression and/or anxiety among adults with neurological disorders were included. Estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed on categorical and continuous moderators, respectively. Main outcomes were pre- and post-intervention depression and anxiety symptom scores, as reported using standardized measures. Fifty-four RCTs involving 5372 participants with 11 neurological disorders (including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke) were included. The overall effect of interventions yielded significant improvements in both depression (57 arms, Hedges' <i>g</i> = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.54) and anxiety symptoms (29 arms, <i>g</i> = 0.38, 95% CI 0.29-0.48), compared to controls. Efficacy was greater in studies which employed a minimum baseline symptom severity inclusion criterion for both outcomes, and greater in trials using inactive controls for depression only. There was also evidence of differential efficacy of interventions across the neurological disorder types and the outcome measure used. Risk of bias, intervention delivery mode, intervention tailoring for neurological disorders, sample size, and study year did not moderate effects. Cognitive and behavioral interventions yield small-to-moderate improvements in symptoms of both depression and anxiety in adults with a range of neurological disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":20891,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11496241/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291724001995","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examined the efficacy of cognitive and behavioral interventions for improving symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults with neurological disorders. A pre-registered systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Neurobite was performed from inception to May 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the efficacy of cognitive and behavioral interventions in treating depression and/or anxiety among adults with neurological disorders were included. Estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed on categorical and continuous moderators, respectively. Main outcomes were pre- and post-intervention depression and anxiety symptom scores, as reported using standardized measures. Fifty-four RCTs involving 5372 participants with 11 neurological disorders (including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, stroke) were included. The overall effect of interventions yielded significant improvements in both depression (57 arms, Hedges' g = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.54) and anxiety symptoms (29 arms, g = 0.38, 95% CI 0.29-0.48), compared to controls. Efficacy was greater in studies which employed a minimum baseline symptom severity inclusion criterion for both outcomes, and greater in trials using inactive controls for depression only. There was also evidence of differential efficacy of interventions across the neurological disorder types and the outcome measure used. Risk of bias, intervention delivery mode, intervention tailoring for neurological disorders, sample size, and study year did not moderate effects. Cognitive and behavioral interventions yield small-to-moderate improvements in symptoms of both depression and anxiety in adults with a range of neurological disorders.

针对患有神经系统疾病的成年人的抑郁和焦虑的认知行为干预:系统综述和荟萃分析。
我们研究了认知和行为干预对改善神经系统疾病成人患者抑郁和焦虑症状的疗效。从开始到 2024 年 5 月,我们对 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Embase 和 Neurobite 进行了预先登记的系统性检索。纳入的随机对照试验(RCT)研究了认知和行为干预对治疗患有神经系统疾病的成人抑郁症和/或焦虑症的疗效。采用随机效应荟萃分析法对估计值进行汇总。分别对分类调节因子和连续调节因子进行了分组分析和元回归分析。主要结果为干预前后的抑郁和焦虑症状评分,采用标准化测量方法进行报告。共纳入了 54 项 RCT,涉及 5372 名患有 11 种神经系统疾病(包括多发性硬化、癫痫和中风)的参与者。与对照组相比,干预措施的总体效果显著改善了抑郁症状(57 项干预措施,赫奇斯 g = 0.45,95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.35-0.54)和焦虑症状(29 项干预措施,g = 0.38,95% 置信区间 0.29-0.48)。对这两项结果均采用最低基线症状严重程度纳入标准的研究疗效更高,仅对抑郁症采用非活动对照的试验疗效更高。还有证据表明,不同的神经系统疾病类型和所采用的结果测量方法的干预效果也不同。偏倚风险、干预实施模式、针对神经系统疾病的干预调整、样本大小和研究年份并不影响效果。认知和行为干预对患有各种神经系统疾病的成年人的抑郁和焦虑症状都有小到中等程度的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Medicine
Psychological Medicine 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
711
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Now in its fifth decade of publication, Psychological Medicine is a leading international journal in the fields of psychiatry, related aspects of psychology and basic sciences. From 2014, there are 16 issues a year, each featuring original articles reporting key research being undertaken worldwide, together with shorter editorials by distinguished scholars and an important book review section. The journal''s success is clearly demonstrated by a consistently high impact factor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信