scholarly journals Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of depressive symptoms, dysthymia and major depressive disorders among homeless people

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040061
Author(s):  
Getinet Ayano ◽  
Asmare Belete ◽  
Bereket Duko ◽  
Light Tsegay ◽  
Berihun Assefa Dachew
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Homeless People ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Major Depressive Disorders

ObjectivesTo assess the global prevalence estimates of depressive symptoms, dysthymia and major depressive disorders (MDDs) among homeless people.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesDatabases including PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched up to February 2020 to identify relevant studies that have reported data on the prevalence of depressive symptoms, dysthymia and MDDs among homeless people.Eligibility criteriaOriginal epidemiological studies written in English that addressed the prevalence of depressive problems among homeless people.Data extraction and synthesisA random-effect meta-analysis was performed to pool the prevalence estimated from individual studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were employed to compare the prevalence across the groups as well as to identify the source of heterogeneities. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s quality assessment checklist was used to measure the study quality. Cochran’s Q and the I2 test were used to assess heterogeneity between the studies.ResultsForty publications, including 17 215 participants, were included in the final analysis. This meta-analysis demonstrated considerably higher prevalence rates of depressive symptoms 46.72% (95% CI 37.77% to 55.90%), dysthymia 8.25% (95% CI 4.79% to 11.86%), as well as MDDs 26.24% (95% CI 21.02% to 32.22%) among homeless people. Our subgroup analysis showed that the prevalence of depressive symptoms was high among younger homeless people (<25 years of age), whereas the prevalence of MDD was high among older homeless people (>50 years of age) when compared with adults (25–50 years).ConclusionThis review showed that nearly half, one-fourth and one-tenth of homeless people are suffering from depressive symptoms, dysthymia and MDDs, respectively, which are notably higher than the reported prevalence rates in the general population. The findings suggest the need for appropriate mental health prevention and treatment strategies for this population group.

Suicide Attempts in Juvenile Bipolar Versus Major Depressive Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 825-831.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franco De Crescenzo ◽  
Giulia Serra ◽  
Francesco Maisto ◽  
Mai Uchida ◽  
Hilary Woodworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Suicide Attempts ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Major Depressive Disorders

scholarly journals The excess costs of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. König ◽  
H.-H. König ◽  
A. Konnopka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Somatic Disease ◽  
Excess Costs ◽  
Major Depressive Disorders ◽  
Study Participants

Abstract Aims Major depressive disorders are highly prevalent in the world population, contribute substantially to the global disease burden and cause high health care expenditures. Information on the economic impact of depression, as provided by cost-of-illness (COI) studies, can support policymakers in the decision-making regarding resource allocation. Although the literature on COI studies of depression has already been reviewed, there is no quantitative estimation of depression excess costs across studies yet. Our aims were to systematically review COI studies of depression with comparison group worldwide and to assess the excess costs of depression in adolescents, adults, elderly, and depression as a comorbidity of a primary somatic disease quantitatively in a meta-analysis. Methods We followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines. PubMed, PsycINFO, NHS EED, and EconLit were searched without limitations until 27/04/2018. English or German full-text peer-reviewed articles that compared mean costs of depressed and non-depressed study participants from a bottom-up approach were included. We only included studies reporting costs for major depressive disorders. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistic. The primary outcome was ratio of means (RoM) of costs of depressed v. non-depressed study participants, interpretable as the percentage change in mean costs between the groups. Results We screened 12 760 articles by title/abstract, assessed 393 articles in full-text and included 48 articles. The included studies encompassed in total 55 898 depressed and 674 414 non-depressed study participants. Meta-analysis showed that depression was associated with higher direct costs in adolescents (RoM = 2.79 [1.69–4.59], p < 0.0001, I2 = 87%), in adults (RoM = 2.58 [2.01–3.31], p < 0.0001, I2 = 99%), in elderly (RoM = 1.73 [1.47–2.03], p < 0.0001, I2 = 73%) and in participants with comorbid depression (RoM = 1.39 [1.24–1.55], p < 0.0001, I2 = 42%). In addition, we conducted meta-analyses for inpatient, outpatient, medication and emergency costs and a cost category including all other direct cost categories. Meta-analysis of indirect costs showed that depression was associated with higher costs in adults (RoM = 2.28 [1.75–2.98], p < 0.0001, I2 = 74%). Conclusions This work is the first to provide a meta-analysis in a global systematic review of COI studies for depression. Depression was associated with higher costs in all age groups and as comorbidity. Pooled RoM was highest in adolescence and decreased with age. In the subgroup with depression as a comorbidity of a primary somatic disease, pooled RoM was lower as compared to the age subgroups. More evidence in COI studies for depression in adolescence and for indirect costs would be desirable.

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

scholarly journals Mindfulness-based and acceptance-based programmes in the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e050329
Author(s):  
Johannes Julian Bürkle ◽  
Johannes Caspar Fendel ◽  
Stefan Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Compulsive Disorder

IntroductionCognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is the recommended standard for the treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a high proportion of patients refuse this treatment, do not respond or relapse shortly after treatment. Growing evidence suggests that mindfulness-based and acceptance-based programmes (MABPs) are an effective option for the treatment of OCD. This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the effectiveness of MABPs in treating OCD. We also aimed to explore potential moderators of the programmes’ effectiveness.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYINDEX, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (no language restrictions) for studies that evaluate the effect of MABPs on patients with OCD. We will conduct backward and forward citation searches of included studies and relevant reviews and contact corresponding authors. The primary outcome will be pre-post intervention change in symptom severity. A secondary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms. Two reviewers will independently screen the records, extract the data and rate the methodological quality of the studies. We will include both controlled and uncontrolled trials. Randomised controlled trials will be meta-analysed, separately assessing between-group effects. A second meta-analysis will assess the within-group effect of all eligible studies. We will explore moderators and sources of heterogeneity such as the specific programme, study design, changes in depressive symptoms, hours of guided treatment, control condition and prior therapy (eg, CBT) using metaregression and subgroup analyses. We will perform sensitivity analyses using follow-up data. A narrative synthesis will also be pursued. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of the evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

Mindfulness- and Acceptance-Based Interventions for Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 003435522110432
Author(s):  
Areum Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Mental Fatigue ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: Mindfulness- and acceptance-based intervention (MABI) is an emerging evidenced-based practice, but no systematic review incorporating meta-analyses for MABIs in stroke survivors has been conducted. The objective of this systematic review was to measure the effectiveness of MABIs on outcomes in people with stroke. Method: Three electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, were searched to identify relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Data were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis with a random-effect model to compute the size of the intervention effect. Results: A total of 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses found a small-to-moderate effect of MABIs on depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.12, 0.66]) and a large effect on mental fatigue (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI = [0.57, 1.87]). No statistically significant effect of MABIs on anxiety, quality of life, and mindfulness was found, but there was a trend in favor of MABIs overall. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found positive effects of MABIs on depressive symptoms and mental fatigue in stroke survivors, but future high-quality studies are needed to guarantee treatment effects of MABIs on varied outcomes in stroke survivors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document