The ‘PRemIum for aDolEscents’ (PRIDE) project has developed a school-based, transdiagnostic stepped care programme for common adolescent mental health problems in India. The programme comprises a brief problem-solving intervention (‘Step 1’) followed by a personalised cognitive-behavioural intervention (‘Step 2’) for participants who do not respond to the first step.

A mixed-method design was used to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the stepped care programme in five schools in New Delhi. Participants were N = 80 adolescents (mean age = 15.3 years, females = 55%) with elevated mental symptoms and associated distress/impairment.

61 (76%) of the enrolled sample were assessed following Step 1, from which 33 (54%) met non-remission criteria. Among these 33 non-remitted cases, 12 (36%) opted for Step 2 and five (42%) completed the full programme. The remaining non-remitted cases (n = 21, 64%) opted out of further treatment. Perceived resolution of the primary problem (n = 9, 43%) was the most common reason for opting out. The median time to complete each step was 22 and 70 days respectively, with a gap of 31 days between steps. Qualitative feedback from adolescents and counsellors indicated requirements for a shorter delivery schedule, greater continuity across steps and more collaborative decision-making.

This study provides preliminary evidence for a stepped care programme aimed at common adolescent mental health problems. Modifications are recommended to enhance the acceptability and feasibility of the programme in low-resource settings.

This study investigates associations of several dimensions of childhood adversities (CAs) with lifetime mental disorders, 12-month disorder persistence, and impairment among incoming college students.

Data come from the World Mental Health International College Student Initiative (WMH-ICS). Web-based surveys conducted in nine countries (n = 20 427) assessed lifetime and 12-month mental disorders, 12-month role impairment, and seven types of CAs occurring before the age of 18: parental psychopathology, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, neglect, bullying victimization, and dating violence. Poisson regressions estimated associations using three dimensions of CA exposure: type, number, and frequency.

Overall, 75.8% of students reported exposure to at least one CA. In multivariate regression models, lifetime onset and 12-month mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders were all associated with either the type, number, or frequency of CAs. In contrast, none of these associations was significant when predicting disorder persistence. Of the three CA dimensions examined, only frequency was associated with severe role impairment among students with 12-month disorders. Population-attributable risk simulations suggest that 18.7–57.5% of 12-month disorders and 16.3% of severe role impairment among those with disorders were associated with these CAs.

CAs are associated with an elevated risk of onset and impairment among 12-month cases of diverse mental disorders but are not involved in disorder persistence. Future research on the associations of CAs with psychopathology should include fine-grained assessments of CA exposure and attempt to trace out modifiable intervention targets linked to mechanisms of associations with lifetime psychopathology and burden of 12-month mental disorders.

The treatment of depression in patients with somatic disorders is crucial, given its negative impact on quality of life (QoL), functioning, and even on the somatic disease prognosis. We aimed to examine the most updated evidence on the effects of psychotherapy in patients with depression and somatic disorders, including HIV, oncological, cardiometabolic, and neurological disorders.

We conducted a meta-analysis of 75 randomized trials (8209 participants) of psychotherapy for adults with somatic disorders and a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression. Outcomes included depression, QoL, somatic health-related outcomes, and mortality.

Psychotherapy significantly reduced the severity of depression at post-treatment across all categories of somatic disorders (Hedges'g = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52–0.79), with sustained effects at 6–11 months (g = 0.38; 95% CI 0.22–0.53) and at 12 months follow-up or longer (g = 0.13; 95% CI 0.04–0.21). Psychotherapy also showed significant effects on QoL (g = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17–0.35), maintained up to 11 months follow-up (g = 0.25; 95% CI 0.16–0.34). No significant effects were observed on the most frequently reported somatic health-related outcomes (glycemic control, pain), and neither on mortality. Heterogeneity in most analyses was very high, and only 29 (38%) trials were rated at low risk of bias (RoB).

Psychotherapy may be an effective treatment option for patients with depression and somatic disorders, with long-term effects on depression severity and QoL. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity and RoB.

Depression during pregnancy and after the birth of a child is highly prevalent and an important public health problem. Psychological interventions are the first-line treatment and, although a considerable number of randomized trials have been conducted, no recent comprehensive meta-analysis has evaluated treatment effects.

We used an existing database of randomized controlled trials of psychotherapies for adult depression and included studies aimed at perinatal depression. Random effects models were used in all analyses. We examined the effects of the interventions in the short and long term, and also examined secondary outcomes.

Forty-three studies with 49 comparisons and 6270 participants between an intervention and control group were included. The overall effect size was g = 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45~0.89; numbers needed-to-be-treated = 4.39] with high heterogeneity (I2 = 80%; 95% CI 75~85). This effect size remained largely unchanged and significant in a series of sensitivity analyses, although some publication bias was found. The effects remained significant at 6–12 months follow-up. Significant effects were also found for social support, anxiety, functional limitations, parental stress and marital stress, although the number of studies for each outcome was low. All results should be considered with caution because of the high levels of heterogeneity in most analyses.

Psychological interventions are probably effective in the treatment of perinatal depression, with effects that last at least up to 6–12 months and probably also have effects on social support, anxiety, functional impairment, parental stress, and marital stress.

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a generic measure of functional impairment and disability but to date no studies have reported its applicability in a population of Syrian refugees.

The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Arabic version of the WHODAS 2.0 among a population of Syrian refugees in a Jordanian refugee camp setting. The tool was used as part of a screening procedure for a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of a low-intensity psychological intervention.

A representative sample of Syrian refugees (n = 650) were screened to assess levels of functional impairment and psychological distress. The screening results were used to explore the internal consistency and dimensionality of the WHODAS 2.0. We assessed level of convergence with the validated Kessler 10-item Psychological Distress Scale (K10), which assesses psychological distress. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to explore the construct validity and factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0.

The mean baseline WHODAS 2.0 score was 20.5 (s.d. = 7.6). The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha 0.74), with all 12-items appearing to be related to the same construct. The WHODAS 2.0 was positively correlated with the K10 (r = 0.57, P < 0.001). The results of the EFA identified a three-factor solution accounting for 51% of variation, corresponding with factors related to self-activities, external activities and self-care. CFA results indicated good fit of the three-factor solution.

The results indicated that the WHODAS 2.0 has a three-factor solution and is an acceptable screening tool for use among Syrian refugees.

Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence.

To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis.

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258).

We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU.

CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

Despite its efficacy in treating comorbid insomnia and depression, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is limited in its accessibility and, in many countries, cultural compatibility. Smartphone-based treatment is a low-cost, convenient alternative modality. This study evaluated a self-help smartphone-based CBT-I in alleviating major depression and insomnia.

A parallel-group randomized, waitlist-controlled trial was conducted with 320 adults with major depression and insomnia. Participants were randomized to receive either a 6-week CBT-I via a smartphone application, proACT-S, or waitlist condition. The primary outcomes included depression severity, insomnia severity, and sleep quality. The secondary outcomes included anxiety severity, subjective health, and acceptability of treatment. Assessments were administered at baseline, post-intervention (week 6) follow-up, and week 12 follow-up. The waitlist group received treatment after the week 6 follow-up.

Intention to treat analysis was conducted with multilevel modeling. In all but one model, the interaction between treatment condition and time at week 6 follow-up was significant. Compared with the waitlist group, the treatment group had lower levels of depression [Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D): Cohen's d = 0.86, 95% CI (−10.11 to −5.37)], insomnia [Insomnia Severity Index (ISI): Cohen's d = 1.00, 95% CI (−5.93 to −3.53)], and anxiety [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Anxiety subscale (HADS-A): Cohen's d = 0.83, 95% CI (−3.75 to −1.96)]. They also had better sleep quality [Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI): Cohen's d = 0.91, 95% CI (−3.34 to −1.83)]. No differences across any measures were found at week 12, after the waitlist control group received the treatment.

proACT-S is an efficacious sleep-focused self-help treatment for major depression and insomnia.

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04228146. Retrospectively registered on 14 January 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04228146

Although non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is an issue of major concern to colleges worldwide, we lack detailed information about the epidemiology of NSSI among college students. The objectives of this study were to present the first cross-national data on the prevalence of NSSI and NSSI disorder among first-year college students and its association with mental disorders.

Data come from a survey of the entering class in 24 colleges across nine countries participating in the World Mental Health International College Student (WMH-ICS) initiative assessed in web-based self-report surveys (20 842 first-year students). Using retrospective age-of-onset reports, we investigated time-ordered associations between NSSI and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-IV) mood (major depressive and bipolar disorder), anxiety (generalized anxiety and panic disorder), and substance use disorders (alcohol and drug use disorder).

NSSI lifetime and 12-month prevalence were 17.7% and 8.4%. A positive screen of 12-month DSM-5 NSSI disorder was 2.3%. Of those with lifetime NSSI, 59.6% met the criteria for at least one mental disorder. Temporally primary lifetime mental disorders predicted subsequent onset of NSSI [median odds ratio (OR) 2.4], but these primary lifetime disorders did not consistently predict 12-month NSSI among respondents with lifetime NSSI. Conversely, even after controlling for pre-existing mental disorders, NSSI consistently predicted later onset of mental disorders (median OR 1.8) as well as 12-month persistence of mental disorders among students with a generalized anxiety disorder (OR 1.6) and bipolar disorder (OR 4.6).

NSSI is common among first-year college students and is a behavioral marker of various common mental disorders.

Digital interventions for anxiety disorders are a promising solution to address barriers to evidence-based treatment access. Precise and powerful estimates of digital intervention effectiveness for anxiety disorders are necessary for further adoption in practice. The present systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of digital interventions across all anxiety disorders and specific to each disorder v. wait-list and care-as-usual controls.

A systematic search of bibliographic databases identified 15 030 abstracts from inception to 1 January 2020. Forty-seven randomized controlled trials (53 comparisons; 4958 participants) contributed to the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted by an anxiety disorder, risk of bias, treatment support, recruitment, location and treatment adherence.

A large, pooled effect size of g = 0.80 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.68–0.93] was found in favor of digital interventions. Moderate to large pooled effect sizes favoring digital interventions were found for generalized anxiety disorder (g = 0.62), mixed anxiety samples (g = 0.68), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (g = 1.08) and social anxiety disorder (g = 0.76) subgroups. No subgroups were significantly different or related to the pooled effect size. Notably, the effects of guided interventions (g = 0.84) and unguided interventions (g = 0.64) were not significantly different. Supplemental analysis comparing digital and face-to-face interventions (9 comparisons; 683 participants) found no significant difference in effect [g = 0.14 favoring digital interventions; Confidence Interval: −0.01 to 0.30].

The precise and powerful estimates found further justify the application of digital interventions for anxiety disorders in place of wait-list or usual care.

Expressive writing about a traumatic event is promising in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in adult trauma survivors. To date, the comparative efficacy and acceptability of this approach is uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to examine the comparative efficacy and acceptability of expressive writing treatments.

We included 44 RCTs with 7724 participants contributing 54 direct comparisons between expressive writing (EW), enhanced writing (i.e. including additional therapist contact or individualized writing assignments; EW+), PTSD psychotherapies (PT), neutral writing (NW), and waiting-list control (WL).

EW, EW+, PT, and NW were statistically significantly more efficacious than WL at the longest available follow-up, with SMDs (95% CI) of −0.78 (−1.10 to −0.46) for PT, −0.81 (−1.02 to −0.61) for EW+ , −0.43 (−0.65 to −0.21) for EW, and −0.37 (−0.61 to −0.14) for NW. We found small to moderate differences between the active treatments. At baseline mean PTSD severity was significantly lower in EW+ compared with WL. We found considerable heterogeneity and inconsistency and we found elevated risk of bias in at least one of the bias dimensions in all studies. When EW+-WL comparisons were excluded from the analyses EW+ was no longer superior compared with EW.

The summarized evidence confirms that writing treatments may contribute to improving PTSD symptoms in medium to long-term. Methodological issues in the available evidence hamper definite conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy and acceptability of writing treatments. Adequately sized comparative randomized controlled trials preferably including all four active treatment approaches, reporting long-term data, and including researchers with balanced preferences are needed.

Previous research on the depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) has found that different latent factor models have maximized empirical measures of goodness-of-fit. The clinical relevance of these differences is unclear. We aimed to investigate whether depression screening accuracy may be improved by employing latent factor model-based scoring rather than sum scores.

We used an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) database compiled to assess the screening accuracy of the PHQ-9. We included studies that used the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) as a reference standard and split those into calibration and validation datasets. In the calibration dataset, we estimated unidimensional, two-dimensional (separating cognitive/affective and somatic symptoms of depression), and bi-factor models, and the respective cut-offs to maximize combined sensitivity and specificity. In the validation dataset, we assessed the differences in (combined) sensitivity and specificity between the latent variable approaches and the optimal sum score (⩾10), using bootstrapping to estimate 95% confidence intervals for the differences.

The calibration dataset included 24 studies (4378 participants, 652 major depression cases); the validation dataset 17 studies (4252 participants, 568 cases). In the validation dataset, optimal cut-offs of the unidimensional, two-dimensional, and bi-factor models had higher sensitivity (by 0.036, 0.050, 0.049 points, respectively) but lower specificity (0.017, 0.026, 0.019, respectively) compared to the sum score cut-off of ⩾10.

In a comprehensive dataset of diagnostic studies, scoring using complex latent variable models do not improve screening accuracy of the PHQ-9 meaningfully as compared to the simple sum score approach.

Antidepressant medication and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) are both recommended interventions in depression treatment guidelines based on literature reviews and meta-analyses. However, ‘conventional’ meta-analyses comparing their efficacy are limited by their reliance on reported study-level information and a narrow focus on depression outcome measures assessed at treatment completion. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, considered the gold standard in evidence synthesis, can improve the quality of the analyses when compared with conventional meta-analysis.

We describe the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of antidepressants and IPT for adult acute-phase depression across a range of outcome measures, including depressive symptom severity as well as functioning and well-being, at both post-treatment and follow-up (PROSPERO: CRD42020219891).

We will conduct a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised clinical trials comparing antidepressants and IPT in the acute-phase treatment of adults with depression. We will invite the authors of these studies to share the participant-level data of their trials. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted using mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects at post-treatment and follow-up for all outcome measures that are assessed in at least two studies.

This will be the first IPD meta-analysis examining antidepressants versus IPT efficacy. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by comparing the short- and long-term effects of two widely used interventions across a range of outcome measures using state-of-the-art statistical techniques.

Self-report screening instruments are frequently used as scalable methods to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but their validity across cultural and linguistic groups is unclear. We summarized the diagnostic accuracy of brief questionnaires on symptoms of depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among Arabic-speaking adults.

Five databases were searched from inception to 22 January 2021 (PROSPERO: CRD42018070645). Studies were included when diagnostic accuracy of brief (maximally 25 items) psychological questionnaires was assessed in Arabic-speaking populations and the reference standard was a clinical interview. Data on sensitivity/specificity, area under the curve, and data to generate 2 × 2 tables at various thresholds were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using the diagmeta package in R. Quality of studies was assessed with QUADAS-2.

Thirty-two studies (Nparticipants = 4042) reporting on 17 questionnaires with 5–25 items targeting depression/anxiety (n = 14), general distress (n = 2), and PTSD (n = 1) were included. Seventeen studies (53%) scored high risk on at least two QUADAS-2 domains. The meta-analysis identified an optimal threshold of 11 (sensitivity 76.9%, specificity 85.1%) for the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (nstudies = 7, nparticipants = 711), 7 (sensitivity 81.9%, specificity 87.6%) for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety subscale and 6 (sensitivity 73.0%, specificity 88.6%) for the depression subscale (nstudies = 4, nparticipants = 492), and 8 (sensitivity 86.0%, specificity 83.9%) for the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) (nstudies = 4, nparticipants = 459).

We present optimal thresholds to screen for perinatal depression with the EPDS, anxiety/depression with the HADS, and CMDs with the SRQ-20. More research on Arabic-language questionnaires, especially those targeting PTSD, is needed.

After remission, antidepressants are often taken long term to prevent depressive relapse or recurrence. Whether psychological interventions can be a viable alternative or addition to antidepressants remains unclear.

To compare the effectiveness of psychological interventions as an alternative (including delivered when tapering antidepressants) or addition to antidepressants alone for preventing depressive relapse.

Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched from inception until 13 October 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with previously depressed patients in (partial) remission where preventive psychological interventions with or without antidepressants (including tapering) were compared with antidepressant control were included. Data were extracted independently from published trials. A random-effects meta-analysis on time to relapse (hazard ratio, HR) and risk of relapse (risk ratio, RR) at the last point of follow-up was conducted. PROSPERO ID: CRD42017055301.

Among 11 included trials (n = 1559), we did not observe an increased risk of relapse for participants receiving a psychological intervention while tapering antidepressants versus antidepressants alone (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.84–1.25; P = 0.85). Psychological interventions added to antidepressants significantly reduced the risk of relapse (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.97; P = 0.01) compared with antidepressants alone.

This study found no evidence to suggest that adding a psychological intervention to tapering increases the risk of relapse when compared with antidepressants alone. Adding a psychological intervention to antidepressant use reduces relapse risk significantly versus antidepressants alone. As neither strategy is routinely implemented these findings are relevant for patients, clinicians and guideline developers.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Shortfalls in treatment quantity and quality are well-established, but the specific gaps in pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy are poorly understood. This paper analyzes the gap in treatment coverage for MDD and identifies critical bottlenecks.

Seventeen surveys were conducted across 15 countries by the World Health Organization-World Mental Health Surveys Initiative. Of 35 012 respondents, 3341 met DSM-IV criteria for 12-month MDD. The following components of effective treatment coverage were analyzed: (a) any mental health service utilization; (b) adequate pharmacotherapy; (c) adequate psychotherapy; and (d) adequate severity-specific combination of both.

MDD prevalence was 4.8% (s.e., 0.2). A total of 41.8% (s.e., 1.1) received any mental health services, 23.2% (s.e., 1.5) of which was deemed effective. This 90% gap in effective treatment is due to lack of utilization (58%) and inadequate quality or adherence (32%). Critical bottlenecks are underutilization of psychotherapy (26 percentage-points reduction in coverage), underutilization of psychopharmacology (13-point reduction), inadequate physician monitoring (13-point reduction), and inadequate drug-type (10-point reduction). High-income countries double low-income countries in any mental health service utilization, adequate pharmacotherapy, adequate psychotherapy, and adequate combination of both. Severe cases are more likely than mild-moderate cases to receive either adequate pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy, but less likely to receive an adequate combination.

Decision-makers need to increase the utilization and quality of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Innovations such as telehealth for training and supervision plus non-specialist or community resources to deliver pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy could address these bottlenecks.

In the past decades, the effects of problem-solving therapy (PST) for depression have been examined in several randomized controlled studies. However, until now no meta-analysis has tried to integrate the results of these studies.

We conducted a systematic literature search and identified 13 randomized studies examining the effects of PST, with a total of 1133 subjects. The quality of studies varied.

The mean standardized effect size was 0.34 in the fixed effects model and 0.83 in the random effects model, with very high heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses indicated significantly lower effects for individual interventions in studies with subjects who met criteria for major depression, studies in which intention-to-treat analyses were conducted instead of completers-only analyses, and studies with pill placebo and care-as-usual control groups. Heterogeneity was high, and the subgroup analyses did not result in clear indications of what caused this high heterogeneity. This indicates that PST has varying effects on depression, and that it is not known to date what determines whether PST has larger of smaller effects.

Although there is no doubt that PST can be an effective treatment for depression, more research is needed to ascertain the conditions and subjects in which these positive effects are realized.