Explore the vast range of titles available.

Studies of cognitive behavioural therapy delivered by computer (cCBT) show clinical efficacy for treating anxiety and depression, but have not focused on barriers to uptake. Potential barriers include adverse consequences, accessibility and acceptability. An integrated systematic review was conducted of quantitative and qualitative studies and surveys from multiple electronic databases where computers delivered cCBT for anxiety or depression. Substantial numbers of potential participants are lost prior to trials commencing with little explanation. Among trial participants, drop-outs may be higher in the cCBT groups (odds ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 0.81-5.09). Only a median of 56% completed a full course of cCBT and personal circumstance was a more common cause of drop-out than difficulties with the technology or social background. Risk was rarely assessed in the majority of programs. Significant staff time was needed to support clients. Therapists were more negative about cCBT than clients. While cCBT is likely to be an effective and acceptable intervention for some people, there are barriers to its uptake that will substantially limit its impact if not addressed. These included investigating the outcome and attitudes of those who do not make it as far as cCBT trials and why so few finish a full course of cCBT.

Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy—cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)—is complex and costly. A simpler therapy—behavioural activation (BA)—might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI −1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [–1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. National Institute for Health Research.

Objective To assess how initial severity of depression affects the benefit derived from low intensity interventions for depression.Design Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 datasets comparing low intensity interventions with usual care.Setting Primary care and community settings.Participants 2470 patients with depression.Interventions Low intensity interventions for depression (such as guided self help by means of written materials and limited professional support, and internet delivered interventions).Main outcome measures Depression outcomes (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), and the effect of initial depression severity on the effects of low intensity interventions.Results Although patients were referred for low intensity interventions, many had moderate to severe depression at baseline. We found a significant interaction between baseline severity and treatment effect (coefficient −0.1 (95% CI −0.19 to −0.002)), suggesting that patients who are more severely depressed at baseline demonstrate larger treatment effects than those who are less severely depressed. However, the magnitude of the interaction (equivalent to an additional drop of around one point on the Beck Depression Inventory for a one standard deviation increase in initial severity) was small and may not be clinically significant.Conclusions The data suggest that patients with more severe depression at baseline show at least as much clinical benefit from low intensity interventions as less severely depressed patients and could usefully be offered these interventions as part of a stepped care model.

Background The prevalence of fathers’ depression and anxiety in the perinatal period (i.e. from conception to 1 year after birth) is approximately 5–10%, and 5–15%, respectively; their children face increased risk of adverse emotional and behavioural outcomes, independent of maternal mental health. Critically, fathers can be protective against the development of maternal perinatal mental health problems and their effects on child outcomes. Preventing and treating paternal mental health problems and promoting paternal psychological wellbeing may therefore benefit the family as a whole. This study examined fathers’ views and direct experiences of paternal perinatal mental health. Methods Men in the Born and Bred in Yorkshire (BaBY) epidemiological prospective cohort who met eligibility criteria (baby born <12 months; completed Mental Health and Wellbeing [MHWB] questionnaires) were invited to participate. Those expressing interest ( n  = 42) were purposively sampled to ensure diversity of MHWB scores. In-depth interviews were conducted at 5–10 months postpartum with 19 men aged 25–44 years. The majority were first-time fathers and UK born; all lived with their partner. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Four themes were identified: ‘legitimacy of paternal stress and entitlement to health professionals’ support’, ‘protecting the partnership’, ‘navigating fatherhood’, and, ‘diversity of men’s support networks’. Men largely described their ‘stress’ with reference to exhaustion, poor concentration and irritability. Despite feeling excluded by maternity services, fathers questioned their entitlement to support, noting that services are pressured and ‘should’ be focused on mothers. Men emphasised the need to support their partner and protect their partnership as central to the successfully navigation of fatherhood; they used existing support networks where available but noted the paucity of tailored support for fathers. Conclusions Fathers experience psychological distress in the perinatal period but question the legitimacy of their experiences. Men may thus be reluctant to express their support needs or seek help amid concerns that to do so would detract from their partner’s needs. Resources are needed that are tailored to men, framed around fatherhood, rather than mental health or mental illness, and align men’s self-care with their role as supporter and protector. Further research is needed to inform how best to identify and manage both parents’ mental health needs and promote their psychological wellbeing, in the context of achievable models of service delivery.

Background Depression is commonly perceived as a single underlying disease with a number of potential treatment options. However, patients with major depression differ dramatically in their symptom presentation and comorbidities, e.g. with anxiety disorders. There are also large variations in treatment outcomes and associations of some anxiety comorbidities with poorer prognoses, but limited understanding as to why, and little information to inform the clinical management of depression. There is a need to improve our understanding of depression, incorporating anxiety comorbidity, and consider the association of a wide range of symptoms with treatment outcomes. Method Individual patient data from six RCTs of depressed patients (total n  = 2858) were used to estimate the differential impact symptoms have on outcomes at three post intervention time points using individual items and sum scores. Symptom networks (graphical Gaussian model) were estimated to explore the functional relations among symptoms of depression and anxiety and compare networks for treatment remitters and those with persistent symptoms to identify potential prognostic indicators. Results Item-level prediction performed similarly to sum scores when predicting outcomes at 3 to 4 months and 6 to 8 months, but outperformed sum scores for 9 to 12 months. Pessimism emerged as the most important predictive symptom (relative to all other symptoms), across these time points. In the network structure at study entry, symptoms clustered into physical symptoms, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Sadness, pessimism, and indecision acted as bridges between communities, with sadness and failure/worthlessness being the most central (i.e. interconnected) symptoms. Connectivity of networks at study entry did not differ for future remitters vs. those with persistent symptoms. Conclusion The relative importance of specific symptoms in association with outcomes and the interactions within the network highlight the value of transdiagnostic assessment and formulation of symptoms to both treatment and prognosis. We discuss the potential for complementary statistical approaches to improve our understanding of psychopathology.

Depression is a common, disabling condition for which psychological treatments, in particular cognitive behavioural therapies are recommended. Promising results in recent randomized trials have renewed interest in behavioural therapy. This systematic review sought to identify all randomized trials of behavioural therapy for depression, determine the effect of such interventions and examine any moderators of such effect. Randomized trials of behavioural treatments of depression versus controls or other psychotherapies were identified using electronic database searches, previous reviews and reference lists. Data on symptom-level, recovery/dropout rate and study-level moderators (study quality, number of sessions, severity and level of training) were extracted and analysed using meta-analysis and meta-regression respectively. Seventeen randomized controlled trials including 1109 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis of symptom-level post-treatment showed behavioural therapies were superior to controls [standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.39, k=12, n=459], brief psychotherapy (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.0 to -0.12, k=3, n=166), supportive therapy (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.14, k=2, n=45) and equal to cognitive behavioural therapy (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.30, k=12, n=476). The results in this study indicate behavioural therapy is an effective treatment for depression with outcomes equal to that of the current recommended psychological intervention. Future research needs to address issues of parsimony of such interventions.

This study aimed to develop, validate and compare the performance of models predicting post-treatment outcomes for depressed adults based on pre-treatment data. Individual patient data from all six eligible randomised controlled trials were used to develop ( = 3, = 1722) and test ( = 3, = 918) nine models. Predictors included depressive and anxiety symptoms, social support, life events and alcohol use. Weighted sum scores were developed using coefficient weights derived from network centrality statistics (models 1-3) and factor loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis (model 4). Unweighted sum score models were tested using elastic net regularised (ENR) and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression (models 5 and 6). Individual items were then included in ENR and OLS (models 7 and 8). All models were compared to one another and to a null model (mean post-baseline Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) score in the training data: model 9). Primary outcome: BDI-II scores at 3-4 months. Models 1-7 all outperformed the null model and model 8. Model performance was very similar across models 1-6, meaning that differential weights applied to the baseline sum scores had little impact. Any of the modelling techniques (models 1-7) could be used to inform prognostic predictions for depressed adults with differences in the proportions of patients reaching remission based on the predicted severity of depressive symptoms post-treatment. However, the majority of variance in prognosis remained unexplained. It may be necessary to include a broader range of biopsychosocial variables to better adjudicate between competing models, and to derive models with greater clinical utility for treatment-seeking adults with depression.

Screening and case-finding has been proposed as a simple, quick and cheap method to improve the quality of care for depression. We sought to establish the effectiveness of screening in improving the recognition of depression, the management of depression and the outcomes of patients with depression. We performed a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials conducted in nonmental health settings that included case-finding or screening instruments for depression. We conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity using meta-regression techniques. Sixteen studies with 7576 patients met our inclusion criteria. We found that the use of screening or case-finding instruments were associated with a modest increase in the recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.59). Questionnaires, when administered to all patients and the results given to clinicians irrespective of baseline score, had no impact on recognition (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.24). Screening or case finding increased the use of any intervention by a relative risk of 1.30 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.76). There was no evidence of influence on the prescription of antidepressant medications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.66). Seven studies provided data on outcomes of depression, and no evidence of an effect was found (standardized mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.20). If used alone, case-finding or screening questionnaires for depression appear to have little or no impact on the detection and management of depression by clinicians. Recommendations to adopt screening strategies using standardized questionnaires without organizational enhancements are not justified.

Background An unprecedented acceleration in digital mental health services happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, people with severe mental ill health (SMI) might be at risk of digital exclusion, partly because of a lack of digital skills, such as digital health literacy. The study seeks to examine how the use of the Internet has changed during the pandemic for people with SMI, and explore digital exclusion, symptomatic/health related barriers to internet engagement, and digital health literacy. Methods Over the period from July 2020 to February 2022, n = 177 people with an SMI diagnosis (psychosis-spectrum disorder or bipolar affective disorder) in England completed three surveys providing sociodemographic information and answering questions regarding their health, use of the Internet, and digital health literacy. Results 42.5% of participants reported experiences of digital exclusion. Cochrane-Q analysis showed that there was significantly more use of the Internet at the last two assessments (80.8%, and 82.2%) compared to that at the beginning of the pandemic (65.8%; ps < 0.001). Although 34.2% of participants reported that their digital skills had improved during the pandemic, 54.4% still rated their Internet knowledge as being fair or worse than fair. Concentration difficulties (62.6%) and depression (56.1%) were among the most frequently reported symptomatic barriers to use the Internet. The sample was found to have generally moderate levels of digital health literacy (M = 26.0, SD = 9.6). Multiple regression analysis showed that higher literacy was associated with having outstanding/good self-reported knowledge of the Internet (ES = 6.00; 95% CI: 3.18–8.82; p < .001), a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (compared to psychosis spectrum disorder – ES = 5.14; 95% CI: 2.47–7.81; p < .001), and being female (ES = 3.18; 95% CI: 0.59–5.76; p = .016). Conclusions These findings underline the need for training and support among people with SMI to increase digital skills, facilitate digital engagement, and reduce digital engagement, as well as offering non-digital engagement options to service users with SMI.

Computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) for depression has the potential to be efficient therapy but engagement is poor in primary care trials. We tested the benefits of adding telephone support to cCBT. We compared telephone-facilitated cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 187) to minimally supported cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 182) in a pragmatic randomised trial (trial registration: ISRCTN55310481). Outcomes were depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD)-7) and somatoform complaints (PHQ-15) at 4 and 12 months. Use of cCBT increased by a factor of between 1.5 and 2 with telephone facilitation. At 4 months PHQ-9 scores were 1.9 points lower (95% CI 0.5-3.3) for telephone-supported cCBT. At 12 months, the results were no longer statistically significant (0.9 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -0.5 to 2.3). There was improvement in anxiety scores and for somatic complaints. Telephone facilitation of cCBT improves engagement and expedites depression improvement. The effect was small to moderate and comparable with other low-intensity psychological interventions.