Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depressive disorders:a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) therapies, including attention bias modification, interpretation bias modification, or approach and avoidance training, are prototypical examples of mechanistically derived treatments, but their effectiveness is contentious. We aimed to assess the relative effectiveness of various CBM interventions for anxious and depressive symptomatology. Methods: For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register from database inception up until Feb 7, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials of CBM versus control conditions or other forms of CBM for adults aged 18 years and older with clinical or subclinical anxiety or depression measured with a diagnostic interview or a validated clinical scale. We excluded studies comparing CBM with a non-CBM active intervention. Two researchers independently selected studies and evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Primary outcomes encompassed anxiety and depressive symptoms measured with validated clinical scales. We computed standardised mean differences (SMDs) with a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018086113. Findings: From 2125 records we selected 85 trials, 65 (n=3897) on anxiety and 20 (n=1116) on depression. In a well connected network of anxiety trials, interpretation bias modification outperformed waitlist (SMD −0·55, 95% CI −0·91 to −0·19) and sham training (SMD −0·30, −0·50 to −0·10) for the primary outcome. Attention bias modification showed benefits only in post-hoc sensitivity analyses excluding post-traumatic stress disorder trials. Prediction intervals for all findings were large, including an SMD of 0. Networks of depression trials displayed evidence of inconsistency. Only four randomised controlled trials had low risk of bias on all six domains assessed. Interpretation: CBM interventions showed consistent but small benefits; however heterogeneity and risk of bias undermine the reliability of these findings. Larger, definitive trials for interpretation bias modification for anxiety might be warranted, but insufficient evidence precludes conclusions for depression. Funding: Romanian Ministry of Research and Innovation, The National Council for Scientific Research—The Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding

Is there a sleeper effect of exposure-based vs. cognitive-only intervention for anxiety disorders? A longitudinal multilevel meta-analysis

There is a longstanding debate in the cognitive behavioral literature whether exposure-based methods produce more sustainable outcomes relative to cognitive methods or vice versa. This debate concerns particularly the time after treatment termination (at follow-up assessments), also referred to as the sleeper effect. Therefore, the aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine the enduring efficacy of Exposure Therapy (ET) in comparison to Cognitive Therapy (CT) from treatment termination to follow-up in anxiety disorders. Available literature also allowed for the assessment of their long-term additive benefits relative to ET only. Traditional random effects analyses with restricted maximum likelihood estimators and multilevel longitudinal analyses were conducted on 39 randomized controlled trials (N = 1878). Traditional analyses revealed no differential efficacy at post-treatment or follow-up. Similarly, the multilevel longitudinal analyses identified no differential growth in efficacy from treatment termination to follow-up. The majority of the variables investigated did not moderate the results. However, there was evidence suggesting that CT was superior to ET when treatment was delivered individually, while ET was superior to CT when delivered as group therapy. Overall, the findings did not validate a number of assumptions, such as the existence of a sleeper effect. Several strengths and limitations are further discussed in the paper

Sociodemographic correlates of mental health treatment seeking among college students:A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveCollege students have high rates of mental health problems and low rates of treatment. Although sociodemographic disparities in student mental health treatment seeking have been reported, findings have not been synthesized and quantified. The extent to which differences in perceived need for treatment contribute to overall disparities remains unclear.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase was conducted. Studies published between 2007 and 2022 were included if they reported treatment rates among college students with mental health problems, stratified by sex, gender, race-ethnicity, sexual orientation, student type, student year, or student status. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled prevalence ratios (PRs) of having a perceived need for treatment and of receiving treatment for each sociodemographic subgroup.ResultsTwenty-one studies qualified for inclusion. Among students experiencing mental health problems, consistent and significant sociodemographic differences were identified in perceived need for treatment and treatment receipt. Students from racial-ethnic minority groups (in particular, Asian students [PR=0.49]) and international students (PR=0.63) reported lower rates of treatment receipt than White students and domestic students, respectively. Students identifying as female (sex) or as women (gender) (combined PR=1.33) reported higher rates of treatment receipt than students identifying as male or as men. Differences in perceived need appeared to contribute to some disparities; in particular, students identifying as male or as men reported considerably lower rates of perceived need than students identifying as female or as women.ConclusionsFindings highlight the need for policy makers to address barriers throughout the treatment-seeking pathway and to tailor efforts to student subgroups to reduce treatment disparities.</p