Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Treatment in the Medical Setting:A Systematic Review

BackgroundThis systematic literature review aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in adult patients treated in the medical setting.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if the effectiveness of EMDR was assessed in adult patients treated in a medical setting. Excluded were patients exclusively suffering from a mental health disorder, without somatic comorbidity. A risk of bias analysis was performed. This review was specified in advance and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325238).Findings89 studies are included and categorized in 14 medical domains: pain, oncology, neurology, obstetrics, otorhinolaryngology, rheumatology, cardiology, gynecology, dentistry, dermatology, pulmonary medicine, internal medicine, nephrology, and intensive care unit. In addition, three studies focusing on persistent physical complaints were included. Most frequently used outcomes were anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms, and pain. These outcomes were assessed by study-specific and validated outcome measures. EMDR was found to be adequate in reducing symptoms in nearly all studies included (87/89). Only two studies, within the field of gynecology, reported either no beneficial effects or that the beneficial effects did not remain over time. Notably, the occurrence of adverse events was rarely mentioned.InterpretationEMDR seems to have a beneficial effect on improving psychological and physical symptoms, including anxiety, PTSD, and pain, in adults treated in a medical setting. Most evidence exists for its application in the fields of oncology, pain, and neurology. The average treatment duration was relatively short, which further improves applicability in the medical setting

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment in the medical setting:a systematic review

Background: Literature points towards the potential benefits of the application of Eye Movement and Desensitization Processing (EMDR)-therapy for patients in the medical setting, with cancer and pain being among the domains it is applied to. The field of applying EMDR-therapy for patients treated in the medical setting has evolved to such an extent that it may be challenging to get a comprehensive overview. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in patients treated in the medical setting. Methods:We performed a literature search following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if the effectiveness of EMDR-therapy was assessed in adult patients treated in a medical setting. Excluded were patients exclusively suffering from a mental health disorder, without somatic comorbidity. A risk of bias analysis was performed. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325238). Results: Eighty-seven studies, of which 26 (pilot)-RCTs were included and categorized in 14 medical domains. Additionally, three studies focusing on persistent physical complaints were included. Most evidence exists for its application in the fields of oncology, pain, and neurology. The overall appraisal of these studies showed at least moderate to high risks of bias. EMDR demonstrated effectiveness in reducing symptoms in 85 out of 87 studies. Notably, the occurrence of adverse events was rarely mentioned. Conclusions: Overall, outcomes seem to show beneficial effects of EMDR on reducing psychological and physical symptoms in patients treated in a medical setting. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, effect sizes could not be pooled. Due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution and further controlled high-quality research is needed.</p

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) treatment in the medical setting:a systematic review

Background: Literature points towards the potential benefits of the application of Eye Movement and Desensitization Processing (EMDR)-therapy for patients in the medical setting, with cancer and pain being among the domains it is applied to. The field of applying EMDR-therapy for patients treated in the medical setting has evolved to such an extent that it may be challenging to get a comprehensive overview. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in patients treated in the medical setting. Methods:We performed a literature search following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if the effectiveness of EMDR-therapy was assessed in adult patients treated in a medical setting. Excluded were patients exclusively suffering from a mental health disorder, without somatic comorbidity. A risk of bias analysis was performed. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022325238). Results: Eighty-seven studies, of which 26 (pilot)-RCTs were included and categorized in 14 medical domains. Additionally, three studies focusing on persistent physical complaints were included. Most evidence exists for its application in the fields of oncology, pain, and neurology. The overall appraisal of these studies showed at least moderate to high risks of bias. EMDR demonstrated effectiveness in reducing symptoms in 85 out of 87 studies. Notably, the occurrence of adverse events was rarely mentioned. Conclusions: Overall, outcomes seem to show beneficial effects of EMDR on reducing psychological and physical symptoms in patients treated in a medical setting. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, effect sizes could not be pooled. Due to the high risk of bias of the included studies, our results should be interpreted with caution and further controlled high-quality research is needed.</p

The effect of mindfulness-based interventions on reducing stress in future health professionals:A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Students in health professions often face high levels of stress due to demanding academic schedules, heavy workloads, disrupted work–life balance, and sleep deprivation. Addressing stress during their education can prevent negative consequences for their mental health and the well-being of their future patients. Previous reviews on the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) focused on working health professionals or included a wide range of intervention types and durations. This study aims to investigate the effect of 6- to 12-week MBIs with 1- to 2-h weekly sessions on stress in future health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in English by searching Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO. We used post-intervention stress levels and standard deviations to assess the ability of MBIs to reduce stress, summarized by the standardized mean difference (SMD). This review is reported according to the PRISMA checklist (2020). We identified 2932 studies, of which 11 were included in the systematic review and 10 had sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The overall effect of MBIs on reducing stress was a SMD of 0.60 (95% CI [0.27, 0.94]). Our study provides evidence that MBIs have a moderate reducing effect on stress in students in health professions; however, given the high risk of bias, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and further high-quality studies are needed.</p

Older living liver donors can enlarge the donor pool:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the best option for end-stage liver disease patients. Older potential donors are increasingly requesting donation. This study aims to systematically assess the differences in donor perioperative and postoperative complications, mortality, and quality of life (QoL) between younger and older living liver donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Embase, Medline, and Cochrane were searched for studies published between 2002 and 2 June 2023. Donor complications, major complications, biliary complications, mortality, and QoL were systematically reviewed, including meta-analyses. Donors aged &gt;50 years were considered older. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment Scale. RESULTS: The search yielded 8320 studies, of which 17 were included. The risk ratio (RR) for complications in younger donors was 1.08 [0.90-1.31] ( P =0.41). RRs for major complications in younger donors were 0.98 [0.64, 1.48] and 0.89 [0.50, 1.57] using Clavien-Dindo ≥III and ≥IIIb as major complication. RR for biliary complications in younger donors was 1.59 [1.05-2.42] ( P =0.03). Mortality rate in younger donors was 47/13 238 (0.4%) and in older donors 13/989 (1.3%). Physical component summary (PCS) in younger donors was 51.87 and in older donors 51.29. Mental component summary (MCS) in younger donors was 52.93 and in older donors 55.40. CONCLUSION: Older donors do not have a higher complication or mortality rate than younger donors after LDLT. They may have a lower rate of biliary complications. Additionally, older donors have a similar QoL after LDLT. With careful selection, older donors can be included in screening programs for living liver donation to expand the donor pool.</p

Starting a Crossover Kidney Transplantation Program in The Netherlands: Ethical and Psychological Considerations

On April 15th, 2003, the first crossover kidney transplantation took place in The Netherlands. In September of the same year, a national database was established to facilitate kidney exchange between two donor-recipient couples. During 2004, kidneys from living donors will be exchanged between the seven university medical centers in The Netherlands. One of the conditions for successfully implementing this program was the need to address the ethical and psychologic implications involved. In this article we will discuss the ethical and psychologic considerations that are accompanying the practical preparations for the first Dutch crossover transplantation program. We identified five topics of interest: the influence of &quot;donation by strangers&quot; on the motivation and willingness of donor-patient couples, the issue of anonymity, the loss of the possibility of &quot;medical excuses&quot; for unwilling donors, the view that crossover is a first step to commercial organ trade, and the interference with existing organ donation programs. We concluded that whether viewed separately or in combination, these issues do not impede the efficient organization of a crossover program or raise worrying ethical issues. Key Words: Ethics, psychology, crossover transplantation, kidney exchange program. 2004;78: 194 -197) T he Netherlands has a population of 16 million. Approximately 375 to 425 kidneys per year are transplanted from cadaver donors. In addition to cadaver transplants, approximately 200 kidneys from living donors were transplanted during 2003. Although the growing number of available living donors helps prevent the waiting lists from growing further, there are not enough kidneys available to help the 1,300 patients already on the waiting list. After starting dialysis, kidney patients have an average waiting time of 4 years before a kidney becomes available. In the meantime, their health status declines. Currently, the mortality rate of patients on dialysis is approximately 20% per year (1). (Transplantation Living organ donation by family or friends offers an opportunity to reduce the long waiting lists. However, in a third of these cases, the transplantation cannot take place because of ABO incompatibility or donor-specific sensitization (2). A crossover transplantation program offers new hope. The program provides a lifesaving opportunity when a donor cannot give his or her kidney to his or her recipient. If another donor-recipient couple experiences the same problem, the kidneys can be exchanged. In South Korea, such a crossover kidney exchange program has been operating successfully for more than 10 years (3). The United States also has experience with &quot;kidney swapping&quot; (4). In Europe, however, crossover transplantations have been attempted only once in Switzerland, in Romania, and in Rotterdam. This conservative European attitude is in part explained by concerns surrounding the ethical and psychologic implications of crossover transplantation. When a crossover program was initiated in The Netherlands, it was agreed that these concerns should be addressed. A multidisciplinary research effort was conducted to determine the most prominent psychologic and ethical issues that surround crossover kidney exchange and to propose practical solutions. We identified five topics of interest: (1) the influence of &quot;donation by strangers&quot; on the motivation and willingness of donor-patient couples; (2) the issue of anonymity; (3) the loss of the possibility of &quot;medical excuses&quot; for unwilling donors; (4) the view that crossover might be the first step to commercial organ trade; and (5) the interference with existing organ donation programs. Next we describe these five topics in detail and suggest practical solutions. Living Organ Donation by Strangers When discussing the ethical and psychologic issues of a crossover transplantation program, a prominent issue is the possibility of a difference in motivation and willingness of kidney donors and recipients compared with the attitudes of those involved in a direct living donation program. At first glance, crossover donation between two couples is not significantly different from direct living kidney donation. The motivation of the donor is the same: helping a friend or a family member by giving a kidney. The result for the patient is equivalent as well: He or she receives the much needed organ. Furthermore, the medical impact for the four people involved is the same as for the two direct living kidney donors. Psychologically, however, it might matter for those involved whethe

Mens (dood of levend) of dier? Attitudes over en morele implicaties van orgaanverwerving

Dit rapport is het verslag van een verkennende studie naar attitudes met betrekking tot orgaandonatie, en de morele implicaties hiervan. Psychologisch en ethisch onderzoek vullen elkaar in dit rapport aan. Er wordt aandacht geschonken aan twee ontwikkelingen op het gebied van orgaanverwerving: de toename van orgaandonaties bij leven, met name bij donatie van nieren en de verminderde interesse in de ontwikkeling van xenotransplantatie. Het psychologische deel van het rapport valt uiteen in literatuurstudie en eigen empirisch onderzoek. In dit deel wordt zowel de attitude van patiënten als de psychosociale belasting beschreven voor xenotransplantatie en voor nierdonatie bij leven. Patiënten zien nierdonatie bij leven in het algemeen als een wenselijk alternatief voor de wachtlijstsituatie, terwijl men in dit opzicht een stuk terughoudender is ten aanzien van xenotransplantatie. Om te bepalen welke rol van overheid, zorgverleners en onderzoekers gepast is, is het van belang te begrijpen hoe persoonlijke overtuigingen worden gevormd en kunnen veranderen. In het ethische, tweede deel van het rapport wordt dan ook meer aandacht besteed aan de verschillende motivaties voor orgaandonatie. Bij postmortale donatie worden vooral waarden als vrijwilligheid, anonimiteit en altruïsme genoemd. Bij familiedonatie doen begrippen als vanzelfsprekende solidariteit, morele plicht en lotsverbondenheid hun intrede, maar ook begrippen als eigenbelang, afhankelijkheid en wederkerigheid. Onderzocht wordt hoe de verschillende donatievormen zich tot elkaar verhouden, teneinde te bepalen op welke motivaties voor orgaandonatie we als maatschappij een beroep willen doen. Op dit punt wordt expliciet ingegaan op de rol van de overheid. Tevens is er een meer losstaand hoofdstuk gewijd aan commerciële orgaandonatie

Living Kidney Donation: Psychological and Ethical Aspects

DOELSTELLING Nierdonatie bij leven levert medisch en maatschappelijk gezien veel voordelen op, maar toch willen of kunnen niet alle nierpatiënten op de wachtlijst en/of hun naasten zich opgeven voor het nierdonatie bij leven programma. De doelstelling van het project ‘Nierdonatie bij leven: psychologische en ethische aspecten’ is het verkrijgen van meer inzicht in de kennis en acceptatie van nierdonatie bij leven. Het gaat hierbij om kennis en acceptatie onder proefpersonen die daadwerkelijk in aanmerking komen voor nierdonatie/ transplantatie bij leven, dat wil zeggen (1) patiënten met eindfase nierfalen op de wachtlijst voor een niertransplantatie en (2) de mensen uit hun omgeving; de potentiële donoren. Het benaderen van deze groepen is de strategie om uit te vinden of, en onder welke voorwaarden, uitbreiding van het nierdonatie bij leven programma praktisch haalbaar en ethisch verdedigbaar is. VRAAGSTELLINGEN Het project omvat twee vraagstellingen. De eerste vraagstelling is: wat zijn de psychologische barrières voor nierdonatie bij leven voor patiënten op de wachtlijst, en de mensen uit hun omgeving? De tweede vraagstelling luidt: wat zijn de morele argumenten om de patiënt en de mensen uit de omgeving van de patiënt (de potentiële donoren) al dan niet actief te benaderen over nierdonatie bij leven? In andere woorden; in hoeverre zijn interventies ethisch verdedigbaar? OPZET PATIËNTEN EN (POTENTIËLE) DONOREN Wij hebben allereerst de groep patiënten die op de wachtlijst voor niertransplantatie staat benaderd (regio Erasmus MC). Aan de patiënt vragen wij toestemming om ook de potentiële donoren uit zijn of haar omgeving te benaderen. Indien beiden hiermee instemmen, vindt het interview met deze potentiële donor plaats. Voor deze studie hebben we tevens een controlegroep benaderd. In de controlegroep zitten patiënten en donoren die nog geen familietransplantatie hebben ondergaan, maar die wel al hebben besloten door te gaan met de donatie bij leven procedure en dit met hun artsen hebben overlegd. INTERVIEW Alle deelnemers aan ons onderzoek zijn geïnterviewd middels een semi-gestructureerd interview. Voorafgaand onderzoek heeft aangetoond dat een aantal factoren een rol kan spelen bij het niet kunnen of willen ondergaan van nierdonatie bij leven. Deze factoren komen terug in de interviews: · Demografische en medische variabelen · Kennis en informatie · Standpunten en argumenten ten aanzien van nierdonatie bij leven, · Communicatie met de arts en de omgeving · Risicoperceptie · Verwachtingen ten aanzien van de gevolgen voor de persoonlijke relatie tussen donor en ontvanger. ETHISCHE ANALYSE De resultaten van de empirische gedeelte van deze studie dienen als basis voor de ethische analyse. Argumenten zoals gevonden in het empirische gedeelte van de studie worden getoetst op houdbaarheid met behulp van ethische theorieën over de structuur van argumenten.,Wij hebben met name gebruik gemaakt van de theorien zoals die geformuleerd zijn door Toulmin, Rawls en Nagel. BEREIKTE RESULTATEN/NIEUWE INZICHTEN De bereidheid om een nier van iemand in de naaste omgeving te accepteren is zeer hoog voor de patiënten in de onderzoeksgroep: slecht 19% is negatief over donatie bij leven. Het is dus niet zo dat de patiënt in het algemeen niet zou willen. Voor een aantal variabelen vonden we verschillen tussen de onderzoeksgroep en de controlegroep. Een opvallende uitkomst is dat in vrijwel àlle gevallen in de controle groep de communicatie over de donatie gestart wordt vanuit de donor: het al dan niet aangeboden krijgen van een nier lijkt bepalend voor het doorgaan van de (levende donor) transplantatie. Patiënten vinden het erg moeilijk om uit zichzelf over het onderwerp te beginnen. Ethische analyse laat zien dat de argumenten en bezwaren tegen nierdonatie bij leven zoals gevonden in de onderzoeksgroep weerlegbaar zijn. Dit gegeven draagt bij aan de rechtvaardiging van interventies in de situatie van paPURPOSE Living kidney donation offers many advantages, both from a medical and societal point of view. However, there is a group of patients that cannot or will not make use of the living kidney donation program. The purpose of the study ‘Living Kidney donation: psychological and ethical aspects’ is to gain insight into the knowledge and acceptance of this form of kidney transplantation. The group we investigate is the group that actually is eligible for living kidney donation / transplantation, namely (1) patients with end stage renal disease on the transplantation waiting list and (2) the persons in their close environment, the potential donors. Investigating these groups is the strategy to find out if, and under what circumstances, expansion of the living kidney donation program is feasible and ethically acceptable. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The project comprises two research questions. The first research question is: what are the psychological barriers for living kidney donation for the patients and the people in their close environment? The second research question is: what are the moral arguments to deal or actively or passively with the persons in the close environment of the patients who are the potential donors? In other words, to what extent are interventions morally acceptable? DESIGN PATIENTS We have approached the group of patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant (region of the Erasmus University Medical Center). We asked the patients for permission to approach individuals in their personal environment, the potential donors. If both (patient and relative of patient) agreed on this, we interviewed these potential donors as well. We also included a control group in our study. This group consists of patients and their actual donors who have planned to undergo living kidney donation/transplantation in the near future and had already made arrangements together with their clinicians. INTERVIEW All participants in our study were interviewed by means of a semi-structured interview. Former research has shown various variables that influence willingness to undergo living kidney donation / transplantation. These variables are included in the interview: · Sociodemographic and medical variables · Knowledge and information · Acceptance of, and argument about of living kidney donation · Communication with the specialist and the personal environment · Risk perception · Expectations regarding the personal relationship between patient and donor. ETHICAL ANALYSIS Ethical analysis is based on the results of the empirical part of the study. Reasoning as found in the empirical part of the study is tested for ethical justification, using ethical theory on the structure of argumentation especially the theories as formulated by Toulmin, Rawls and Nagel. BEREIKTE RESULTATEN/NIEUWE INZICHTEN The willingness to accept the offer of a living kidney donor is very high for patients in the group of interest: only 19% has a negative attitude towards ling donation. Thus, it is not a matter of unwillingness of the patients to accept a living kidney donor. We found a number of differences between the group of interest and the control group. A notable finding is that the communication about kidney donation in the control group is almost always initiated by the donor : being offered a kidney (or not) seems to be decisive for either or not pursuing living kidney donation. Patients find it very difficult to bring up the topic them selves. Ethical analysis shows that the arguments or objections against living kidney donation as raised by the group of interest can be refuted. This adds to the moral acceptability of interventions in the situation of patients on the waiting list for transplantation who do not enter the living kidney donation program initially

De Behoefte aan Psychosociale Steun bij Deelnemers aan het Nederlandse Cross-over Transplantatie Programma

Final technical report of the project.The Dutch kidney exchange donation program started in January 2004. A literature review has shown that several factors of the exchange program could influence the psychological well being of participants, such as the loss of the possibility of a “medical excuse” for unwilling donors and the issue of anonymity. However, these factors have not been the subject of empirical study yet. We therefore studied these factors to determine whether additional psychosocial support is necessary for donors and recipients in the Dutch kidney exchange program. We used structured interviews for all 48 donors and recipients that had undergone exchange donation/ transplantation in 2004. A psychologist interviewed the participants before and 3 months after transplantation. We included a comparison group of 48 donors and recipients participating in the regular living kidney donation program. Donors did not experience additional pressure to donate due to the exchange donation. Most participants preferred anonymity between the couples. We found few needs for additional emotional support. In this respect the exchange group did not differ from the comparison group. We conclude that the psychosocial support offered to exchange couples can be comparable to the support normally offered to participants in the regular living kidney donation program