scholarly journals Does Improving Sleep Lead to Better Mental Health? A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J Scott ◽  
Thomas Llewelyn Webb ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Georgina Rowse ◽  
Scott Weich
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Response Relationship ◽  
Dose Response Relationship ◽  
Mental Health Difficulties ◽  
Randomised Controlled

The extent to which sleep is causally related to mental health difficulties is unclear. One way to test the causal link is to evaluate the extent to which interventions that improve sleep also improve mental health. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that reported the effects of an intervention that improved sleep on composite mental health, as well as on seven specific mental health difficulties. 65 trials comprising 72 interventions and N = 8,608 participants were included. Improving sleep led to a significant medium-sized effect on composite mental health (g+ = -0.53), depression (g+ = -0.63), anxiety (g+ = -0.51), and rumination (g+ = -0.49), as well as significant small-to-medium sized effects on stress (g+ = -0.42), and finally small significant effects on positive psychosis symptoms (g+ = -0.26). We also found a dose response relationship, in that greater improvements in sleep led to greater improvements in mental health. Our findings suggest that sleep is causally related to the experience of mental health difficulties. Future research might consider how interventions that improve sleep could be better incorporated into mental health care, as well as the mechanisms of action that explain how sleep exerts an effect on mental health.

770 Does Improving Sleep Lead to Better Mental Health? A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A300-A300
Author(s):  
Alexander Scott
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Mental Health Difficulties ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Introduction Sleep and mental health go hand-in-hand; however, the extent to which sleep is causally related to the experience of mental health difficulties is unclear. One way to test whether there is a causal link is to evaluate the extent to which interventions that improve sleep also improve mental health over time. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 randomised controlled trials (N = 6,876) that reported the effects of interventions that successfully improved sleep on overall composite mental health, as well as on six specific mental health difficulties including depression, anxiety, stress, psychosis spectrum experiences, suicidal ideation, and PTSD. Results Improving sleep had a medium-sized effect on composite mental health (g+ = -0.47), and depression (g+ = -0.54), small-to-medium sized effects on anxiety (g+ = -0.40), and stress (g+ = -0.42), and small effects on positive psychosis spectrum experiences (g+ = -0.26). We also found a significant dose response relationship, in that greater improvements in sleep were associated with greater improvements in composite mental health. Conclusion Taken together, the findings suggest that sleep is causally related to the experience of mental health difficulties. Improving sleep leads to better mental health, especially for experiences of depression, anxiety, and stress. Future research might profitably consider how interventions that improve sleep be better incorporated into routine mental health care, as well as the possible mechanisms of action that might explain how sleep exerts its effects on mental health. Support (if any) This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG- 0817-20027). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

scholarly journals New Evidence in the Booming Field of Online Mindfulness: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Sommers-Spijkerman ◽  
Judith Austin ◽  
Ernst Bohlmeijer ◽  
Wendy Pots
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BACKGROUND There is a need for regularly updating the evidence base on the effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), especially considering how fast this field is growing and developing. OBJECTIVE The current study presents an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of online MBIs on mental health, as well as the potential moderators of those effects. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science up to July 19th, 2019. Seventy trials totalling 91 comparisons were included. Pre-to-post and pre-to-follow-up between-group effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were calculated for depression, anxiety, stress, well-being and mindfulness, using a random effects model. RESULTS The findings revealed statistically significant moderate pre-to-post effects on stress (g=0.41) and mindfulness (g=0.43) and small effects on depression (g=0.31) and anxiety (g=0.23). For well-being, a significant effect was found only when omitting low quality studies (g=0.34). Significant but small follow-up effects were found for depression (g=0.25), anxiety (g=0.17) and stress (g=-0.11). Subgroup analyses revealed that online MBIs resulted in higher effect sizes for stress when offered with guidance. For stress and mindfulness, studies that used an inactive control condition yielded larger effects. CONCLUSIONS Our findings do not only demonstrate that the field of online MBIs is booming, but also corroborate previous evidence that online MBIs are beneficial for improving mental health outcomes in a broad range of samples. To advance the field of online MBIs, future trials should pay specific attention to methodological quality, adherence and long-term follow-up measurements.

scholarly journals Improving sleep quality leads to better mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 ◽  
pp. 101556
Author(s):  
Alexander J. Scott ◽  
Thomas L. Webb ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Georgina Rowse ◽  
Scott Weich
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Kaleidoscope

2017 ◽  
Vol 211 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-257
Author(s):  
Derek K. Tracy ◽  
Dan W. Joyce ◽  
Sukhwinder S. Shergill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
School Settings ◽  
General Distress ◽  
Externalising Problems ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Gloria Gaynor was an early proponent of resilience, winning many converts with her reflections on ‘how you did me wrong I grew strong, and I learned how to get along’. Tapping into this – resilience, not ‘70s disco – to improve mental health outcomes is a growing concept, but does evidence support this sensible, if sometimes loosely defined, idea? Dray et al provide a timely systematic review of 57 randomised controlled trials of universal resilience-focused interventions targeting children and adolescents in school settings. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with control conditions, interventions were effective in reducing depressive symptoms, internalising and externalising problems, and general distress, but not anxiety, hyperactivity or conduct problems. However, there was variation between age groups and duration of intervention. Not all data were amenable to meta-analysis – the inability to divide results by gender being noteworthy – but these findings support the principle of general resilience-focused preventive programmes in this cohort.

scholarly journals Does improving sleep lead to better mental health? A protocol for a meta-analytic review of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e016873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J Scott ◽  
Thomas L Webb ◽  
Georgina Rowse
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Analytic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionSleep and mental health go hand-in-hand, with many, if not all, mental health problems being associated with problems sleeping. Although sleep has been traditionally conceptualised as a secondary consequence of mental health problems, contemporary views prescribe a more influential, causal role of sleep in the formation and maintenance of mental health problems. One way to evaluate this assertion is to examine the extent to which interventions that improve sleep also improve mental health.Method and analysisRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing the effects of interventions designed to improve sleep on mental health will be identified via a systematic search of four bibliographic databases (in addition to a search for unpublished literature). Hedges’gand associated 95% CIs will be computed from means and SDs where possible. Following this, meta-analysis will be used to synthesise the effect sizes from the primary studies and investigate the impact of variables that could potentially moderate the effects. The Jadad scale for reporting RCTs will be used to assess study quality and publication bias will be assessed via visual inspection of a funnel plot and Egger’s test alongside Orwin’s fail-safen. Finally, mediation analysis will be used to investigate the extent to which changes in outcomes relating to mental health can be attributed to changes in sleep quality.Ethics and disseminationThis study requires no ethical approval. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and promoted to relevant stakeholders.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017055450.

scholarly journals Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in non-clinical settings: protocol of an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Galante ◽  
Claire Friedrich ◽  
Tim Dalgleish ◽  
Ian R White ◽  
Peter B. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Introduction With mental ill health listed as a top cause of global disease burden, there is an urgent need to prioritise mental health promotion programmes. Mindfulness–based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress in non-clinical settings. In a recent aggregate-level meta-analysis we found that, compared with no intervention, these MBPs reduce average psychological distress. However, heterogeneity between studies impedes generalisation of effects across every setting. Study-level moderators were insufficient to reduce heterogeneity; studying individual–level moderators is warranted. This requires individual participant data (IPD) and larger samples than those found in existing individual trials. Methods and analysis We propose an IPD meta–analysis. Our primary aim is to see if, and how, baseline psychological distress, gender, age, education, and dispositional mindfulness moderate the effect of MBPs on distress. We will search 13 databases for good-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing in–person, expert–defined MBPs in non-clinical settings with passive controls. Two researchers will independently select, extract, and appraise trials using the revised Cochrane Risk–of–Bias Tool (RoB2). Anonymised IPD of eligible trials will be sought from authors, who will be invited to collaborate. The primary outcome will be psychological distress measured using psychometrically-validated questionnaires at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Pairwise random-effects two-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted. Moderator analyses will follow a “deft” approach. We will estimate subgroup-specific intervention effects. Secondary outcomes and sensitivity analyses are pre-specified. Multiple imputation strategies will be applied to missing data. Ethics and dissemination The findings will refine our knowledge on the effectiveness of MBPs and help improve the targeting of MBPs in non-clinical settings. They will be shared in accessible formats with a range of stakeholders. Public and professional stakeholders are being involved in the planning, conduct and dissemination of this project. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020200117

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document