Effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to other psychological and pharmacological interventions for reducing depressive symptoms in women diagnosed with postpartum depression in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.
Postpartum depression (PPD) is a condition that can affect any woman regardless of ethnicity, age, party, marital status, income, and type of delivery. This condition is highly prevalent worldwide. PPD, if not treated timely, can affect the maternal-child bond and can have a detrimental impact on the future cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development of the child. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) has been reported as an effective treatment of PPD in previous studies as this focuses on relationship and social support issues. Previous reviews conducted in developed nations have reported the superior efficacy of IPT in comparison to other treatment options. There is no systematic review conducted in low to middle-income countries on the efficacy of IPT on PPD. Therefore it was necessary to undertake a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of IPT in reducing the depression among postpartum women in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).
The main aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of IPT alone or in conjunction with pharmacological therapy and/or other psychological and psychosocial interventions, in reducing depressive symptoms among women diagnosed with PPD residing in LMICs.
The systematic search encompassed several prominent databases and grey literature. Furthermore, experts specializing in the field of IPT were consulted to identify any relevant studies conducted in LMICs that fulfilled the predetermined eligibility criteria. The most recent search update was performed in July 2022.
The PICOS criteria were meticulously defined for this review as described. Participants: Postpartum women diagnosed with PPD in LMICs were included. Intervention: IPT either as a standalone treatment or in conjunction with pharmacological therapy was included. Comparison: any form of psychological therapy or pharmacological therapy, whether administered individually or in combination, was considered for comparison. Study designs: experimental and quasi-experimental, factorial designs, and quantitative components (experimental, quasi-experimental, factorial designs) of mixed methods designs were eligible to be included. Studies with single-group study designs and qualitative studies were excluded from the review.
Two reviewers from our team conducted a rigorous screening process to determine the eligibility of articles for inclusion. This involved an initial evaluation of titles and abstracts, followed by a comprehensive assessment of the full text of selected articles. In instances where discrepancies arose between the two reviewers, resolution was achieved through discussion or consultation with a third author to establish a consensus. Following the screening process, two team members independently extracted pertinent information and data from the studies that met the inclusion criteria. The treatment effect of the intervention, in comparison to the control group, was subsequently analyzed utilizing the fixed effects model taking into account the small number of studies.
A total of 17,588 studies were identified from various databases, and 6493 duplicate studies were removed. Subsequently, 9380 studies underwent independent title and abstract screening resulting in the exclusion of 9040 studies. 345 full texts were thoroughly assessed leading to the exclusion of 341 studies, finally including 4 studies for review. The four included trials were randomized trials and comprised a total sample size of 188 women diagnosed with PPD residing in LMICs. Among these studies, three compared IPT with usual treatment, while one study compared IPT with antidepressant medications (ADMs). In terms of the providers of IPT, in one study, IPT was administered by nurses, while psychologists delivered IPT in another study. In one study, community health workers were responsible for providing IPT. However, in one study, information regarding the specific providers of IPT was not available or reported. The primary outcome measure reported in all four studies was depression, assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). The geographical distribution of the studies included; one conducted in Zambia, one in Kenya, one in Pakistan, and one in Iran. Out of the four studies, three were included in the meta-analysis, as missing data from one study could not be obtained. Based on the overall treatment effect, it was found that depression scores decreased significantly more in the IPT group compared to other interventions (usual treatment or ADMs) (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] (-1.01, -0.23), Z = 3.13 (p = 0.002), χ 2 = 49.49; df = 2; p < 0.00001; I 2 = 96%; 3 studies, n = 136). Out of the three studies, two studies compared the effectiveness of IPT in reducing depression scores specifically when compared to the usual treatment, and in both studies, depression scores were reduced significantly in the IPT group as compared to the usual treatment group. Only one study directly compared the effectiveness of IPT with ADM, reporting that IPT was more effective than ADM in reducing depression scores among postpartum women. Regarding adverse outcomes, only one study reported suicidal ideation with one participant in the IPT group and two in the ADM group (RR 0.50, 95% CI (0.05, 5.30), p = 0.56, n = 78). The same study reported seven participants in the ADM group had adverse drug reactions as compared to none in the IPT group (RR 15.0, 95% CI (0.89, 254), p = 0.06, n = 78).
Our comprehensive search yielded a limited number of four studies conducted in such settings. Despite the scarcity of available evidence, the findings collectively suggest that IPT is indeed an effective treatment for reducing PPD when compared to usual treatment and pharmacological therapy. However given the low certainty of evidence, there is a need for further research in the form of well-designed randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and a reduced risk of bias. Such studies would greatly contribute to enhancing the strength and reliability of the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of IPT in the context of PPD in LMICs. The knowledge generated from future research endeavors would be highly valuable in guiding the development of more affordable and cost-effective treatment approaches for PPD in resource-limited settings.
Kang HK
，Bisht B
，Kaur M
，Alexis O
，Worsley A
，John D
... -
《-》
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.
About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences).
We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes.
A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education.
To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually.
Not registered.
Pillay J
，Gaudet LA
，Saba S
，Vandermeer B
，Ashiq AR
，Wingert A
，Hartling L
... -
《Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
