"If we don't forgive, it's like holding on to them": A qualitative study of religious and spiritual coping on psychological recovery in older crime victims

OBJECTIVE: There is growing need to strengthen support for older crime victims. We aimed to explore spiritual and/or religious (S/R) beliefs in a sample of older victims and understand how this shapes psychological responding and coping with crime. METHOD: Qualitative study with supplementary descriptive statistics nested within a clinical trial. We explored psychological responding and coping in-depth through semistructured interviews with 27 older victims of police-reported crime, purposefully sampled to achieve maximum variation. We inductively analyzed data using a reflexive thematic analysis. We assessed the breadth of S/R beliefs in a large sample (N = 402) of initially distressed older victims using an abbreviated version of The Royal Free Interview for Spiritual Beliefs. We assessed continued psychological distress using the two-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Patient Health Questionnaire 3 months postcrime. RESULTS: Over two-thirds (67%) identified as S/R, but psychological distress scores were similar, irrespective of religiosity. Our qualitative analysis suggests that crime may impact religious identity or practice in some older victims (hate crime) but influences attitudes or coping in others. Positive coping included acceptance, forgiveness, and/or turning to prayer or faith communities. Negative coping included fixation on retribution, superstition, perceived abandonment by God, or an inability to accommodate the crime within their beliefs, amplifying psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the psychological impact on older crime victims is enhanced by clarifying the role of S/R. Further research, especially on non-Christian religious victims, is needed. Cultural awareness training for trauma counselors and trauma awareness training for faith leaders is recommended. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Talking control sessions in people with advanced cancer: a qualitative analysis of sessions

BACKGROUND: Talking control (TC) was developed to control for the common factors in therapy so that the specific effects of therapy can be tested. A TC was recently used in a pilot study of Acceptance and Commitment therapy for dysfunction in people with advanced cancer. This work explores the audio recording of the sessions in a TC to explore how they were utilised by people with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a qualitative study nested in larger feasibility randomised control trial. The trial participants were recruited from three London hospices. The study examined data for 5 participants who received weekly sessions of a TC. Fifteen sessions, three per participant, were transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Individuals with advanced cancer used TC sessions as a safe place in which they could express their feelings-from smaller daily concerns to deeper-rooted difficulties. Many participants also engaged in emotional and cognitive avoidance regarding some topics, particularly those pertaining to their cancer. The TC sessions were also used as an opportunity to focus on the more positive aspects of their lives. Lastly, they served to reflect on ways to overcome difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the TC can have beneficial, albeit varying uses for people with advanced cancer, that may even be considered therapeutic

Experiential Avoidance in Advanced Cancer: a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: People with advanced cancer experience psychological distress due to physical symptoms, functional decline, and a limited prognosis. Difficult thoughts, feelings, and emotions may exacerbate distress and lead to avoidance of these experiences which is sometimes referred to as experiential avoidance (EA). Advanced cancer patients may be more likely to engage in EA especially when no obvious solutions to their problems exist. This study aims to examine the terms used to describe EA, the processes that might indicate EA, associations between EA and psychological distress, and to understand why individuals might engage in EA. METHODS: A mixed-methods review. Literature search of Medline, Embase, Psych INFO, and CINAHL 1980-October 2019. INCLUSION: adults ≥ 18 years; advanced cancer not amenable to cure. EXCLUSION: no measures of EA or psychological distress. Risk of bias and study quality assessed. Evidence of statistical techniques collected. Themes coded, grouped, and developed based on meaning. RESULTS: Nineteen studies identified, 13 quantitative studies and 6 qualitative. The quantitative of which 6 compared early-stage cancers with advanced cancers and examined subscales of EA alongside mood, quality of life, and psychological distress. EA covers a range or terms of which 'avoidant coping' is the commonest. EA is manifest as cognitive, behavioural, and emotional avoidance. A thematic synthesis suggests the function of EA is to protect people from distress, and from confronting or expressing difficult emotions by avoiding communication about cancer, controlling negative information, and maintaining normality and hope and optimism. CONCLUSIONS: EA may be beneficial in the short term to alleviate distress, but in the longer term, it can impair function and limit engagement in life. Greater clinical awareness of the complexity of EA behaviours is needed. Clinicians and researchers should define EA precisely and be aware of the function it may serve in the short and longer term. Future research studies may consider using specific measures of EA as a primary outcome, to assess the impact of psychological interventions such as ACT

Psychological distress and interventions for older victims of crime : a systematic review

We aimed to conduct the first systematic narrative review and quality appraisal of existing evidence on the psychological consequences of crime in older victims in the community and psychological interventions. We searched five databases to identify all peer-reviewed literature published in English on psychological impact and/or interventions for older crime victims and quality appraised these using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (Prospero: CRD42019140137). Evidence from included studies were narratively synthesized, along with their strengths and limitations. We found 20 studies on psychological distress in older victims, four of which included interventions. From these, we identified 30 different impacts including symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, emotions including humiliation and self-blame, and behavioral changes. Only feasibility interventions have been published, although promising results were reported for cognitive-behavioral informed treatments for depression and anxiety. Studies were wide-ranging in aims, crimes included, and outcomes used. Recommendations for improving the evidence-base and to raise the profile of this neglected population have been provided

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain:a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain. We will achieve this by: assessing the efficacy of antidepressants by type, class and dose in improving pain, mood, patient global impression of change, physical functioning, sleep quality and quality of life; assessing the number of adverse events of antidepressants by type, class and dose; ranking antidepressants in the efficacy of treating pain, mood and adverse events

Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain:a network meta-analysis

Background: Chronic pain is common in adults, and often has a detrimental impact upon physical ability, well-being, and quality of life. Previous reviews have shown that certain antidepressants may be effective in reducing pain with some benefit in improving patients’ global impression of change for certain chronic pain conditions. However, there has not been a network meta-analysis (NMA) examining all antidepressants across all chronic pain conditions. Objectives: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain (except headache). Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, AMED and PsycINFO databases, and clinical trials registries, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants for chronic pain conditions in January 2022. Selection criteria: We included RCTs that examined antidepressants for chronic pain against any comparator. If the comparator was placebo, another medication, another antidepressant, or the same antidepressant at different doses, then we required the study to be double-blind. We included RCTs with active comparators that were unable to be double-blinded (e.g. psychotherapy) but rated them as high risk of bias. We excluded RCTs where the follow-up was less than two weeks and those with fewer than 10 participants in each arm. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors separately screened, data extracted, and judged risk of bias. We synthesised the data using Bayesian NMA and pairwise meta-analyses for each outcome and ranked the antidepressants in terms of their effectiveness using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We primarily used Confidence in Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) and Risk of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN) to assess the certainty of the evidence. Where it was not possible to use CINeMA and ROB-MEN due to the complexity of the networks, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcomes were substantial (50%) pain relief, pain intensity, mood, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were moderate pain relief (30%), physical function, sleep, quality of life, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), serious adverse events, and withdrawal. Main results: This review and NMA included 176 studies with a total of 28,664 participants. The majority of studies were placebo-controlled (83), and parallel−armed (141). The most common pain conditions examined were fibromyalgia (59 studies); neuropathic pain (49 studies) and musculoskeletal pain (40 studies). The average length of RCTs was 10 weeks. Seven studies provided no useable data and were omitted from the NMA. The majority of studies measured short-term outcomes only and excluded people with low mood and other mental health conditions. Across efficacy outcomes, duloxetine was consistently the highest-ranked antidepressant with moderate- to high-certainty evidence. In duloxetine studies, standard dose was equally efficacious as high dose for the majority of outcomes. Milnacipran was often ranked as the next most efficacious antidepressant, although the certainty of evidence was lower than that of duloxetine. There was insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions for the efficacy and safety of any other antidepressant for chronic pain. Primary efficacy outcomes. Duloxetine standard dose (60 mg) showed a small to moderate effect for substantial pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69 to 2.17; 16 studies, 4490 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and continuous pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.31, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.24; 18 studies, 4959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For pain intensity, milnacipran standard dose (100 mg) also showed a small effect (SMD −0.22, 95% CI −0.39 to 0.06; 4 studies, 1866 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mirtazapine (30 mg) had a moderate effect on mood (SMD −0.5, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.22; 1 study, 406 participants; low-certainty evidence), while duloxetine showed a small effect (SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.22 to −0.1; 26 studies, 7952 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); however it is important to note that most studies excluded participants with mental health conditions, and so average anxiety and depression scores tended to be in the 'normal' or 'subclinical' ranges at baseline already. Secondary efficacy outcomes. Across all secondary efficacy outcomes (moderate pain relief, physical function, sleep, quality of life, and PGIC), duloxetine and milnacipran were the highest-ranked antidepressants with moderate-certainty evidence, although effects were small. For both duloxetine and milnacipran, standard doses were as efficacious as high doses. Safety. There was very low-certainty evidence for all safety outcomes (adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawal) across all antidepressants. We cannot draw any reliable conclusions from the NMAs for these outcomes. Authors' conclusions: Our review and NMAs show that despite studies investigating 25 different antidepressants, the only antidepressant we are certain about for the treatment of chronic pain is duloxetine. Duloxetine was moderately efficacious across all outcomes at standard dose. There is also promising evidence for milnacipran, although further high-quality research is needed to be confident in these conclusions. Evidence for all other antidepressants was low certainty. As RCTs excluded people with low mood, we were unable to establish the effects of antidepressants for people with chronic pain and depression. There is currently no reliable evidence for the long-term efficacy of any antidepressant, and no reliable evidence for the safety of antidepressants for chronic pain at any time point.</p

The clinical and cost effectivementss of cognitive behavioural therapy plus treatment as usual for the treatment of depression in advanced cancer (CanTalk):study protocol for a radomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depressive disorder in adults with advanced cancer is around 20 %. Although cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is recommended for depression and may be beneficial in depressed people with cancer, its use for depression in those with advanced disease for whom cure is not likely has not been explored. METHODS: People aged 18 years and above with advanced cancer attending General Practitioner (GP), oncology or hospice outpatients from centres across England will be screened to establish a DSM-IV diagnosis of depression. Self-referral is also accepted. Eligible consenters will be randomised to a single blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of the addition to treatment as usual (TAU) of up to 12 one-hour weekly sessions of manualised CBT versus TAU alone. Sessions are delivered in primary care through Increasing Access to Psychological Care (IAPT) service, and the manual includes a focus on issues for people approaching the end of life. The main outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Subsidiary measures include the Patient Health Questionnaire, quality of life measure EQ-5D, Satisfaction with care, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status and a modified Client Service Receipt Inventory. At 90 % power, we require 240 participants to enter the trial. Data will be analysed using multi-level (hierarchical) models for data collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks. Cost effectiveness analysis will incorporate costs related to the intervention to compare overall healthcare costs and QALYs between the treatment arms. We will conduct qualitative interviews after final follow-up on patient and therapist perspectives of the therapy. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide data on the clinical and cost effectiveness of CBT for people with advanced cancer and depression. We shall gain an understanding of the feasibility of delivering care to this group through IAPT. Our findings will provide evidence for policy-makers, commissioners and clinicians in cancer and palliative care, and in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN07622709 , registered 15 July 2011

Manualised cognitive behavioural therapy in treating depression in advanced cancer:The CanTalk RCT

BACKGROUND: With a prevalence of up to 16.5%, depression is one of the commonest mental disorders in people with advanced cancer. Depression reduces the quality of life (QoL) of patients and those close to them. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend treating depression using antidepressants and/or psychological treatments, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). Although CBT has been shown to be effective for people with cancer, it is unclear whether or not this is the case for people with advanced cancer and depression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment as usual (TAU) plus manualised CBT, delivered by high-level Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) practitioners, versus TAU for people with advanced cancer and depression, measured at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks. DESIGN: Parallel-group, single-blind, randomised trial, stratified by whether or not an antidepressant was prescribed, comparing TAU with CBT plus TAU. SETTING: Recruitment took place in oncology, hospice and primary care settings. CBT was delivered in IAPT centres or/and over the telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N = 230; n = 115 in each arm) with advanced cancer and depression. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of cancer not amenable to cure, a DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) diagnosis of depressive disorder using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, a sufficient understanding of English and eligibility for treatment in an IAPT centre. Exclusion criteria were an estimated survival of < 4 months, being at high risk of suicide and receiving, or having received in the last 2 months, a psychological intervention recommended by NICE for treating depression. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Up to 12 sessions of manualised individual CBT plus TAU delivered within 16 weeks and (2) TAU. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory, version 2 (BDI-II) score at 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, satisfaction with care, EuroQol-5 Dimensions and the Client Services Receipt Inventory, at 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 80% of treatments (185/230) were analysed: CBT (plus TAU) (n = 93) and TAU (n = 92) for the BDI-II score at all time points using multilevel modelling. CBT was not clinically effective [treatment effect -0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.76 to 1.08; p = 0.39], nor was there any benefit for other measures. A subgroup analysis of those widowed, divorced or separated showed a significant effect of CBT on the BDI-II (treatment effect -7.21, 95% CI -11.15 to -3.28; p < 0.001). Economic analysis revealed that CBT has higher costs but produces more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than TAU. The mean service costs for participants (not including the costs of the interventions) were similar across the two groups. There were no differences in EQ-5D median scores at baseline, nor was there any advantage of CBT over TAU at 12 weeks or 24 weeks. There was no statistically significant improvement in QALYs at 24 weeks. LIMITATIONS: Although all participants satisfied a diagnosis of depression, for some, this was of less than moderate severity at baseline, which could have attenuated treatment effects. Only 64% (74/115) took up CBT, comparable to the general uptake through IAPT. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioural therapy (delivered through IAPT) does not achieve any clinical benefit in advanced cancer patients with depression. The benefit of CBT for people widowed, divorced or separated is consistent with other studies. Alternative treatment options for people with advanced cancer warrant evaluation. Screening and referring those widowed, divorced or separated to IAPT for CBT may be beneficial. Whether or not improvements in this subgroup are due to non-specific therapeutic effects needs investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07622709. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Out-patient triple chronotherapy for the rapid treatment and maintenance of response in depression : feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trial

Background Triple chronotherapy (sleep deprivation for 36 h, followed by 4 days of advancing the time of sleep and daily morning bright-light therapy for 6 months) has demonstrated benefits for the rapid treatment of depressive symptoms in four small controlled trials of in-patients. Aims To test the feasibility of recruitment and delivery of triple chronotherapy for out-patients with depression (ISRCTN17706836; NCT03405493). Method In a single-blind trial, 82 participants were randomised to triple chronotherapy or a control intervention. The primary outcome was the number of participants recruited per month and adherence to the protocol. Secondary outcomes included the 6-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-6) at 1 week. Timings of observer ratings were baseline and 1, 2, 4, 8 and 26 weeks after randomisation. Results The triple chronotherapy group stayed awake for the planned 36 h and 89.9% adhered to the plan of phase advance of their sleep over the following 4 days. We achieved our recruitment target (60 participants completed the trial within 13 months). There were no reported adverse side-effects. We found a significant difference between the groups by intention-to-treat analysis for the HRSD-6 at weeks 1, 8 and 26. There was a large effect size of Cohen's d = 0.8 on HRSD-6 score at week 1, increasing to d = 1.30 at week 26. A response (≥50% reduction in symptoms) was achieved by 33.3% in the triple chronotherapy group and 16.2% in the control group. This stayed relatively steady until week 26 (35.9 v. 13.9%). Conclusions Triple chronotherapy produced a significant and rapid benefit after 1 week in out-patients with depression that was sustained at 26 weeks. Cost-effectiveness trials with a larger clinical sample are required

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy versus talking and usual care for depressed older people in primary care

Background: Whilst evidence suggests cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) may be effective for depressed older people in a primary care setting, few studies have examined its cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), a talking control (TC) and treatment as usual (TAU), delivered in a primary care setting, for older people with depression.Methods: Cost data generated from a single blind randomised controlled trial of 204 people aged 65 years or more were offered only Treatment as Usual, or TAU plus up to twelve sessions of CBT or a talking control is presented. The Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) was the main outcome measure for depression. Direct treatment costs were compared with reductions in depression scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using non-parametric bootstrapping. The primary analysis focussed on the cost-effectiveness of CBT compared with TAU at 10 months follow up.Results: Complete cost data were available for 198 patients at 4 and 10 month follow up. There were no significant differences between groups in baseline costs. The majority of health service contacts at follow up were made with general practitioners. Fewer contacts with mental health services were recorded in patients allocated to CBT, though these differences were not significant. Overall total per patient costs (including intervention costs) were significantly higher in the CBT group compared with the TAU group at 10 month follow up (difference 427 pound, 95% CI: 56 pound - 787 pound, p < 0.001). Reductions in BDI-II scores were significantly greater in the CBT group (difference 3.6 points, 95% CI: 0.7-6.5 points, p = 0.018). CBT is associated with an incremental cost of 120 pound per additional point reduction in BDI score and a 90% probability of being considered cost-effective if purchasers are willing to pay up to 270 pound per point reduction in the BDI-II score.Conclusions: CBT is significantly more costly than TAU alone or TAU plus TC, but more clinically effective. Based on current estimates, CBT is likely to be recommended as a cost-effective treatment option for this patient group if the value placed on a unit reduction in BDI-II is greater than 115 pound