Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
It is not clear if treatments for depression targeting repetitive negative thinking (RNT: rumination, worry and content-independent perseverative thinking) have a specific effect on RNT resulting in better outcomes than treatments that do not specifically target rumination. We conducted a systematic search of PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized trials in adolescents, adults and older adults comparing CBT treatments for (previous) depression with control groups or with other treatments and reporting outcomes on RNT. Inclusion criteria were met by 36 studies with a total of 3307 participants. At post-test we found a medium-sized effect of any treatment compared to control groups on RNT (g=0.48; 95% CI: 0.37-0.59). Rumination-focused CBT: g=0.76, <0.01; Cognitive Control Training: g=0.62, p<.01; CBT: g=0.57, p<.01; Concreteness training: g=0.53, p<.05; and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy: g=0.42, p<.05 had medium sized and significantly larger effect sizes than other types of treatment (i.e., anti-depressant medication, light therapy, engagement counseling, life review, expressive writing, yoga) (g=0.14) compared to control groups. Effects on RNT at post-test were strongly associated with the effects on depression severity and this association was only significant in RNT-focused CBT. Our results suggest that in particular RNT-focused CBT may have a more pronounced effect on RNT than other types of interventions. Further mediation and mechanistic studies to test the predictive value of reductions in RNT following RNT-focused CBT for subsequent depression outcomes are called for.
PURPOSE Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients.METHODS We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models.
RESULTS The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I2 = 0; P >.05).
CONCLUSIONS Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.