ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The evidence available on the association between social support and prevention of depression has been basically obtained from observational studies. AIM: We evaluated the effectiveness of social support-based interventions for the prevention of depression in people without clinical depression. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) of randomized controlled trials (RCT), which were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WOS, PsycINFO, OpenGrey and other sources from the inception dates to June 8, 2022. We selected RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of social support-based interventions as compared to controls, included subjects without baseline clinical depression, and measured as results a reduction in depressive symptoms and/or the incidence of new cases of depression. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated from random effects models. RESULTS: Nine RCTs involving 927 patients from North America, Asia and Europe were included. The pooled SMD was -0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.04; p = .031]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results. Heterogeneity was substantial [I2 = 80% (95% CI: 64% to 89%)]. A meta-regression model that included usual care as comparator and the continent (Europe), explained 53% of heterogeneity. Eight RCTs had a moderate overall risk of bias and one had a high risk of bias. Follow-up was ⩾1 year in only three RCTs. There was no statistical evidence of publication bias. The quality of evidence, as measured on GRADE guidelines, was low. CONCLUSION: Social support-based interventions had a small preventive effect on depression. Longer RCTs with a low risk of bias are necessary.
Subject(s)
Depression , Depressive Disorder, Major , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , AsiaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We report the psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Impact of Symptoms in Schizophrenia Scale (PRISS), which assesses the impact of subjective experiences or qualia in outpatients with this condition. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in 162 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in Spain. The PRISS measures the presence, frequency, concern and interference with daily life of self-reported experiences related to the main symptoms observed in these patients. The psychometric analysis included test-retest reliability, internal consistency and structural and convergent validity. RESULTS: The 28-item PRISS showed good test-retest reliability as 64.3% of the intraclass correlation coefficient values were between 0.40 and 0.79, which were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Analysis of the structural validity revealed a three-factor structure, (1) productive subjective experiences, (2) affective-negative subjective experiences and (3) excitation, which accounted for 56.11% of the variance. Of the Pearson's correlation coefficients analysed between the PRISS and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS), 72.2% were statistically significant (p < 0.05) and ranged from 0.38-0.42, 0.32-0.42 and 0.40-0.42, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the PRISS appears to be a brief, reliable and valid scale to measure subjective experiences in schizophrenia and provides valuable information complementary to clinical evaluation.
