Emotional Eating Interventions for Adults Living with Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Emotional eating (EE) may be defined as a tendency to eat in response to negative emotions and energy-dense and palatable foods, and is common amongst adults with overweight or obesity. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions that address EE. Objectives: To synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of EE interventions for weight loss and EE in adults living with overweight or obesity. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adhering to the PRISMA guidance, a comprehensive electronic search was completed up to February 2022. Random effects meta-analysis was carried out to determine the percentage change in weight and EE scores. Results: Thirty-four studies were included. The combined effect size for percentage weight change was −1.08% (95% CI: −1.66 to −0.49, I2 = 64.65%, n = 37), once adjusted for publication bias. Similarly, the combined effect size for percentage change in EE was −2.37%, (95% CI: −3.76 to −0.99, I2 = 87.77%, n = 46). Cognitive Behavioural Therapy showed the most promise for reducing weight and improving EE. Conclusions: Interventions to address EE showed promise in reducing EE and promoted a small amount of weight loss in adults living with overweight or obesity

Adapting an online guided self- help intervention for the management of binge eating in adults with type 2 diabetes: The POSE- D study

Aims People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are more likely to experience binge eating than the general population, which may interfere with their diabetes management. Guided self-help (GSH) is the recommended treatment for binge-eating disorder, but there is currently a lack of evidenced treatment for binge eating in individuals living with T2D. The aims of the current study were to adapt an existing evidence-based GSH intervention using the principles of co-design to make it available online, suitable for remote delivery to address binge eating specifically in adults living with T2D. The Working to Overcome Eating Difficulties GSH intervention comprises online GSH materials presented in seven sections delivered over 12 weeks, supported by a trained Guide. Methods In order to adapt the intervention, we held four collaboration workshops with three expert patients recruited from diabetes support groups, eight healthcare professionals and an expert consensus group. We used thematic analysis to make sense of the data. Results and Conclusions The main themes included; keeping the GSH material generic, adapting Sam the central character, tailoring the dietary advice and eating diary. The length of Guidance sessions was increased to 60 min, and Guide training was focussed around working with people with diabetes

Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review

Aims To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered. Results T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor-augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well-being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow-up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real-world conditions. Conclusions PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care

Behavioural activation to prevent depression and loneliness among socially isolated older people with long-term conditions: The BASIL COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial

Background Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to “shield” to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. Methods and findings We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of −0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI −2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI −1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI −0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months −0.87 (95% CI −1.56 to −0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (−1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (−1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (−4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (−4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (−2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (−2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. Conclusions In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). Trial registration ISRCTN94091479

Physical Activity in Adults with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder: A Large Cross-Sectional Survey Exploring Patterns, Preferences, Barriers, and Motivating Factors

Adults with severe mental ill health may have specific attitudes toward physical activity. To inform intervention development, we conducted a survey to assess the physical activity patterns, preferences, barriers, and motivations of adults with severe mental ill health living in the community. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and logistic regressions were used to explore relationships between physical activity status and participant characteristics. Five-hundred and twenty-nine participants (58% male, mean age 49.3 years) completed the survey. Large numbers were insufficiently active and excessively sedentary. Self-reported levels of physical activity below that recommended in national guidelines were associated with professional inactivity, consumption of fewer than five portions of fruit and vegetables per day, older age, and poor mental health. Participants indicated a preference for low-intensity activities and physical activity that they can do on their own, at their own time and pace, and close to home. The most commonly endorsed source of support was social support from family and friends. Common motivations included improving mental health, physical fitness, and energy levels. However, poor mental and physical health and being too tired were also common barriers. These findings can inform the development of physical activity interventions for this group of people

Improving programme-led and focused interventions for eating disorders: An experts' consensus statement—A UK perspective

Objective Eating disorders are associated with significant illness burden and costs, yet access to evidence-based care is limited. Greater use of programme-led and focused interventions that are less resource-intensive might be part of the solution to this demand-capacity mismatch. Method In October 2022, a group of predominantly UK-based clinical and academic researchers, charity representatives and people with lived experience convened to consider ways to improve access to, and efficacy of, programme-led and focused interventions for eating disorders in an attempt to bridge the demand-capacity gap. Results Several key recommendations were made across areas of research, policy, and practice. Of particular importance is the view that programme-led and focused interventions are suitable for a range of different eating disorder presentations across all ages, providing medical and psychiatric risk are closely monitored. The terminology used for these interventions should be carefully considered, so as not to imply that the treatment is suboptimal. Conclusions Programme-led and focused interventions are a viable option to close the demand-capacity gap for eating disorder treatment and are particularly needed for children and young people. Work is urgently needed across sectors to evaluate and implement such interventions as a clinical and research priority

Mitigating the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions: The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) pilot randomised controlled trial to prevent depression and loneliness among older people with long term conditions

Background: Older adults with long-term conditions have become more socially isolated (often due to advice to shield to protect them from COVID-19) and are thus at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural Activation is a plausible intervention, but a trial is needed. Methods We undertook an external randomised pilot trial ( ISRCTN94091479 ) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥ 65 years with two or more long-term conditions were recruited between June and October 2020. Behavioural Activation was offered to intervention participants (n=47), and control participants received usual care (n=49). Findings Remote recruitment was possible and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed one or more sessions (median 6 sessions). 90 (93.8%) completed the one month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the three month follow-up. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at one month was an adjusted between group mean difference of -0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI -2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At three months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference was 0.19 (95% CI -1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness scale at one month was 0.28 (95% CI -0.51 to 1.06), and there was statistically significant between group difference at three months (-0.87; 95% CI -1.56 to -0.18). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. Interpretation Behavioural Activation is a plausible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and this will now be confirmed in a fully powered RCT. Funding This study was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) RP-PG-0217-2000

Can we mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation using behavioural activation? Long-term results of the UK BASIL urgent public health COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial and living systematic review

Background Behavioural and cognitive interventions remain credible approaches in addressing loneliness and depression. There was a need to rapidly generate and assimilate trial-based data during COVID-19. Objectives We undertook a parallel pilot RCT of behavioural activation (a brief behavioural intervention) for depression and loneliness (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation, the BASIL-C19 trial ISRCTN94091479). We also assimilate these data in a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021298788) of cognitive and/or behavioural interventions. Methods Participants (≥65 years) with long-term conditions were computer randomised to behavioural activation (n=47) versus care as usual (n=49). Primary outcome was PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes included loneliness (De Jong Scale). Data from the BASIL-C19 trial were included in a metanalysis of depression and loneliness. Findings The 12 months adjusted mean difference for PHQ-9 was −0.70 (95% CI −2.61 to 1.20) and for loneliness was −0.39 (95% CI −1.43 to 0.65). The BASIL-C19 living systematic review (12 trials) found short-term reductions in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.31, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.11) and loneliness (SMD=−0.48, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.27). There were few long-term trials, but there was evidence of some benefit (loneliness SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01; depression SMD=−0.20, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.07). Discussion We delivered a pilot trial of a behavioural intervention targeting loneliness and depression; achieving long-term follow-up. Living meta-analysis provides strong evidence of short-term benefit for loneliness and depression for cognitive and/or behavioural approaches. A fully powered BASIL trial is underway. Clinical implications Scalable behavioural and cognitive approaches should be considered as population-level strategies for depression and loneliness on the basis of a living systematic review