The impact of the social environment on children's mental health in a prosperous city: an analysis with data from the city of Munich

BACKGROUND: Children with a low socioeconomic position are more affected by mental difficulties as compared to children with a higher socioeconomic position. This paper explores whether this socioeconomic pattern persists in the prosperous German city of Munich which features high quality of life and coverage of children mental health specialists that lies well above the national average and is among the highest in Europe. METHODS: 1,265 parents of preschool children participated in a cross-sectional health survey. They were given a self-administered questionnaire (including socioeconomic variables) and the 'Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)', a well-established method to identify mental difficulties among children and adolescents. Prevalence estimates for the 'SDQ-Total Difficulties Score' were calculated, with a special focus on differences by parental (resp. household) socioeconomic position. The association between parental education, household income, single parenthood, nationality, and parental working status on one hand, and their children's mental health on the other, was explored using multivariable logistic regression models. The coverage of mental health specialists per 100,000 children aged 14 or younger in the city of Munich was also calculated. RESULTS: In Munich, the distribution of mental health difficulties among children follows the same socioeconomic pattern as described previously at the national level, but the overall prevalence is about 30% lower. Comparing different indicators of socioeconomic position, low parental education and household income are the strongest independent variables associated with mental difficulties among children (OR = 2.7; CI = 1.6 - 4.4 and OR = 2.8; CI = 1.4 - 5.6, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic differences in the prevalence of childhood mental difficulties are very stable. Even in a city such as Munich, which is characterized by high quality of life, high availability of mental health specialists, and low overall prevalence of these mental difficulties, they are about as pronounced as in Germany as a whole. It can be concluded that the effect of several characteristics of socioeconomic position 'overrules' the effect of a health promoting regional environment

The Effects of Cognitive Therapy versus ‘No Intervention’ for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures

The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus ‘treatment as usual’ for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed ‘interpersonal psychotherapy’ and only one trial assessed ‘psychodynamic psychotherapy’. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference −3.12 (95% confidence interval −4.39 to −1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with ‘treatment as usual’. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result.We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with ‘treatment as usual’ for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed

Cognitive Changes and Quality of Life in Neurocysticercosis: A Longitudinal Study

Neurocysticercosis (NCC) is one of the most common parasitic infections of the central nervous system. Cognitive changes have been frequently reported with this disease but have not been well studied. Our study team recruited a group of new onset NCC cases and a matched set of healthy neighborhood controls and new onset epilepsy controls in Lima, Peru for this study. A neuropsychological battery was administered at baseline and at 6 months to all groups. Brain MRI studies were also obtained on NCC cases at baseline and at 6 months. Newly diagnosed patients with NCC had mild cognitive deficits and more marked decreases in quality of life at baseline compared with controls. Improvements were found in both cognitive status and quality of life in patients with NCC after treatment. This study is the first to assess cognitive status and quality of life longitudinally in patients with NCC and provides new data on an important clinical morbidity outcome

Treatment of chronically depressed patients: A multisite randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of 'Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy' (CBASP) for chronic depressions versus usual secondary care

AbstractBackground'Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy' (CBASP) is a form of psychotherapy specifically developed for patients with chronic depression. In a study in the U.S., remarkable favorable effects of CBASP have been demonstrated. However, no other studies have as yet replicated these findings and CBASP has not been tested outside the United States. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of CBASP in the Netherlands.Methods/DesignThe purpose of the present paper is to report the study protocol of a multisite randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of 'Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy' (CBASP) for chronic depression in the Netherlands. In this study, CBASP in combination with medication, will be tested versus usual secondary care in combination with medication. The aim is to recruit 160 patients from three mental health care organizations. Depressive symptoms will be assessed at baseline, after 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 32 weeks and 52 weeks, using the 28-item Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS). Effect modification by co morbid anxiety, alcohol consumption, general and social functioning and working alliance will be tested. GEE analyses of covariance, controlling for baseline value and center will be used to estimate the overall treatment effectiveness (difference in IDS score) at post-treatment and follow up. The primary analysis will be by 'intention to treat' using double sided tests. An economic analysis will compare the two groups in terms of mean costs and cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective.DiscussionThe study will provide an answer to the question whether the favorable effects of CBASP can be replicated outside the US

Positive Psychology in Cancer Care: Bad Science, Exaggerated Claims, and Unproven Medicine

Claims of positive psychology about people with cancer enjoy great popularity because they seem to offer scientific confirmation of strongly held cultural beliefs and values. Our goal is to examine critically four widely accepted claims in the positive psychology literature regarding adaptational outcomes among individuals living with cancer. We examine: (1) the role of positive factors, such as a "fighting spirit" in extending the life of persons with cancer; (2) effects of interventions cultivating positive psychological states on immune functioning and cancer progression and mortality; and evidence concerning (3) benefit finding and (4) post-traumatic growth following serious illness such as cancer and other highly threatening experiences. Claims about these areas of research routinely made in the positive psychology literature do not fit with available evidence. We note in particular the incoherence of claims about the adaptational value of benefit finding and post-traumatic growth among cancer patients, and the implausibility of claims that interventions that enhance benefit finding improve the prognosis of cancer patients by strengthening the immune system. We urge positive psychologists to rededicate themselves to a positive psychology based on scientific evidence rather than wishful thinking