The Relation Between Worry and Mental Health in Nonclinical Population and Individuals with Anxiety and Depressive Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

Author(s):  
Andreea Vîslă ◽  
Céline Stadelmann ◽  
Edward Watkins ◽  
Richard E. Zinbarg ◽  
Christoph Flückiger
2021 ◽  
pp. 000486742110607
Author(s):  
Lucy L Gan ◽  
Susanna Gong ◽  
David W Kissane

Objective: Demoralisation is a state of poor coping characterised by low morale, hopelessness, subjective incompetence, and loss of meaning and purpose in life. While studied extensively in oncology and palliative care, there has been recent exploration in broader medical and mental health settings. The aim was to investigate the prevalence of demoralisation and associated sociodemographic and psychological factors across these clinical settings. Method: Six electronic databases were used to locate articles from January 2014 to March 2020. A pre-publication update of non-oncology populations was completed in September 2021. The review has been reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled prevalence of demoralisation was determined through % prevalence and mean demoralisation score; this was synthesised through meta-analysis of single means to determine pooled mean prevalence of Demoralisation Scale scores using the ‘R’ statistical software. Results: Demoralisation has been examined in 52 studies ( n = 11,670) and found to be prevalent in 24–35% of oncology and non-oncology, including mental health, populations. The mean score on the Demoralisation Scale was 24.3 (95% confidence interval, CI = [21.3, 27.3]). There was evidence of divergent validity in addition to significant comorbidity between depression, demoralisation and suicidal ideation. Burdensome physical symptoms, and psychological and demographic factors are strongly correlated with demoralisation. Conclusion: There remains a need to recognise demoralisation in various clinical and cultural settings and to strongly consider its inclusion as a ‘specifier’ within formal nosological systems for adjustment and depressive disorders. This is important to initiate targeted interventions and prevent significant morbidity.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Henssler ◽  
Friederike Stock ◽  
Joris van Bohemen ◽  
Henrik Walter ◽  
Andreas Heinz ◽  
...  

Abstract Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of people worldwide is currently affected by quarantine or isolation. These measures have been suggested to negatively impact on mental health. We conducted the first systematic literature review and meta-analysis assessing the psychological effects in both quarantined and isolated persons compared to non-quarantined and non-isolated persons. PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for studies until April 22, 2020 (Prospero Registration-No.: CRD42020180043). We followed PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines for data extraction and synthesis and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for assessing risk of bias of included studies. A random-effects model was implemented to pool effect sizes of included studies. The primary outcomes were depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders. All other psychological parameters, such as anger, were reported as secondary outcomes. Out of 6807 screened articles, 25 studies were included in our analyses. Compared to controls, individuals experiencing isolation or quarantine were at increased risk for adverse mental health outcomes, particularly after containment duration of 1 week or longer. Effect sizes were summarized for depressive disorders (odds ratio 2.795; 95% CI 1.467–5.324), anxiety disorders (odds ratio 2.0; 95% CI 0.883–4.527), and stress-related disorders (odds ratio 2.742; 95% CI 1.496–5.027). Among secondary outcomes, elevated levels of anger were reported most consistently. There is compelling evidence for adverse mental health effects of isolation and quarantine, in particular depression, anxiety, stress-related disorders, and anger. Reported determinants can help identify populations at risk and our findings may serve as an evidence-base for prevention and management strategies.


2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S517-S517 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Tarelho ◽  
M. Duarte ◽  
J. Melim ◽  
A. Batista ◽  
S. Almeida

IntroductionIf we are what we eat, are we eating ourselves into depression and anxiety? There has been an emerge evidence supporting a role for lifestyle factors in the development of these conditions.ObjectiveTo review evolving concepts and gain insight on the phenomenon of dietary pattern and mental health.MethodsBibliographic search in Pubmed for articles published between 2010 and 2015, using the keywords words mental health, diet and depression, from the 220 articles found, 68 were included.ResultsFrom the 68 selected articles, 19 were reviews, 3 randomized controlled trials and 2 meta-analysis. The scientific community agrees that substantial global changes in the food system have had a highly detrimental impact on dietary patterns. Thirty-three articles found a positive correlation between unhealthy dietary patterns and poorer mental health or better mental health with healthy eating habits, such as a potential protective role of mediterranean diet (or similar) with regard to the prevention of depressive disorders. A recent systematic review by Baskin et al (2015) revealed positive associations between poor quality and unhealthy diets and antenatal depressive and stress symptoms. Healthy diets were inversely associated with antenatal depressive and anxiety symptoms.ConclusionAlthough there is some evidence on the association between dietary quality and mental health, we can’t tell if it's a casual linkage or what are the biological pathways that mediate these relationships. Therefore, randomized control trials of diet are necessary to disentangle the effects of multiple health behaviors on mental health.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Polanin ◽  
Dorothy L. Espelage ◽  
Jennifer K. Grotpeter ◽  
Elizabeth Spinney ◽  
Katherine M. Ingram ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen S. Conley ◽  
Jenna B. Shapiro ◽  
Alexandra C. Kirsch ◽  
Joseph A. Durlak

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Slaten ◽  
Thomas W. Baskin ◽  
Jaquaye L. Glover ◽  
Carey Sorenson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document