A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care based on risk predictive algorithms and decision support systems: protocol of the e-predictD study.

The predictD is an intervention implemented by general practitioners (GPs) to prevent depression, which reduced the incidence of depression-anxiety and was cost-effective. The e-predictD study aims to design, develop, and evaluate an evolved predictD intervention to prevent the onset of major depression in primary care based on Information and Communication Technologies, predictive risk algorithms, decision support systems (DSSs), and personalized prevention plans (PPPs). A multicenter cluster randomized trial with GPs randomly assigned to the e-predictD intervention + care-as-usual (CAU) group or the active-control + CAU group and 1-year follow-up is being conducted. The required sample size is 720 non-depressed patients (aged 18-55 years), with moderate-to-high depression risk, under the care of 72 GPs in six Spanish cities. The GPs assigned to the e-predictD-intervention group receive brief training, and those assigned to the control group do not. Recruited patients of the GPs allocated to the e-predictD group download the e-predictD app, which incorporates validated risk algorithms to predict depression, monitoring systems, and DSSs. Integrating all inputs, the DSS automatically proposes to the patients a PPP for depression based on eight intervention modules: physical exercise, social relationships, improving sleep, problem-solving, communication skills, decision-making, assertiveness, and working with thoughts. This PPP is discussed in a 15-min semi-structured GP-patient interview. Patients then choose one or more of the intervention modules proposed by the DSS to be self-implemented over the next 3 months. This process will be reformulated at 3, 6, and 9 months but without the GP-patient interview. Recruited patients of the GPs allocated to the control-group+CAU download another version of the e-predictD app, but the only intervention that they receive via the app is weekly brief psychoeducational messages (active-control group). The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of major depression measured by the Composite International Diagnostic Interview at 6 and 12 months. Other outcomes include depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-7), depression risk (predictD risk algorithm), mental and physical quality of life (SF-12), and acceptability and satisfaction ('e-Health Impact' questionnaire) with the intervention. Patients are evaluated at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. An economic evaluation will also be performed (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis) from two perspectives, societal and health systems. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03990792.

Effectiveness of social support-based interventions in preventing depression in people without clinical depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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.

Effectiveness of psychological interventions in preventing postpartum depression in non-depressed women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Postpartum depression (PPD) is one of the most common disorders following childbirth. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) aimed to assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions in preventing PPD in non-depressed women. PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, OpenGrey, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry and clinicaltrial.gov were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with pregnant or postpartum (up to 12 months) women who were non-depressed at baseline were selected. The outcomes were the incidence of PPD and/or the reduction of postpartum depressive symptoms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) using random-effect models was calculated. Sensitivity, sub-group and meta-regression analyses were performed. 17 RCTs were included in the SR and 15 in the MA, representing 4958 participants from four continents. The pooled SMD was -0.175 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.266 to -0.083; p < 0.001] and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this result. Heterogeneity was low (I2 = 21.20%) and was fully explained by a meta-regression model including one variable (previous deliveries). The meta-regression model and MA stratified by previous deliveries indicated that interventions focused on primiparous women are more effective. There was no evidence of publication bias. Few RCTs had an overall low risk of bias. According to GRADE, the quality of evidence was moderate. Psychological interventions have very little effectiveness in preventing PPD in non-depressed women, although this effectiveness is greater in interventions focused on primiparous women. Further RCTs with a low risk of bias and more effective interventions are needed.

Moderators of psychological and psychoeducational interventions for the prevention of anxiety: A systematic review.

The aim of this study was to assess the available evidence on potential moderators of psychological and psychoeducational interventions for the prevention of anxiety. A systematic review using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, OpenGrey, and CENTRAL was performed up to October 2019. Two independent researchers assessed the fulfillment of eligibility criteria, extracted the data and performed a quality assessment of the included studies. Outcomes were moderators of the reduction of anxious symptoms or the incidence of anxiety disorders. Fourteen studies reporting results on moderator analyses performed in 13 randomized controlled trials were included. Twenty-seven potential moderators were organized into six categories: sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, cognitive variables, life events, interpersonal functioning and intervention characteristics. The most frequently examined variables were gender, age and baseline anxiety. We found insufficient evidence for all moderator categories studied. In children and adolescents, we found some studies with significant results for the low family support variable and higher levels of anxiety symptoms at baseline, which were both associated with higher effectiveness. Limited conclusions can be drawn about for whom and under what conditions interventions work in the prevention of anxiety. A strong need to improve the methodological quality and the number of moderator studies was identified.

Moderators of psychological and psychoeducational interventions for the prevention of depression: A systematic review.

Psychological and psychoeducational interventions have proven to be effective in preventing depression. However, the identification of the patients that benefit the most from each type of intervention has not yet been established. A systematic review was performed of the literature on moderators of preventive psychological and psychoeducational interventions for depression in all types of population. A search was performed on PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and OpenGrey up to July 2019. Fulfillment of eligibility criteria, data collection, and study quality assessment were assessed by two independent researchers. Outcomes were moderators of the reduction of depressive symptoms or the incidence of depression. Twenty-seven moderator effect studies performed in 19 randomized controlled trials were included. Thirty-four potential sociodemographic, clinical, interpersonal, personality and life-event moderators were evaluated. Baseline depressive symptoms, gender, age, baseline parental depression and social support were the most frequently studied potential moderators. In interventions for children and adolescents, the moderator for which evidence was strongest was having parents free of depression at baseline. Psychological and psychoeducational interventions seem to be more effective in children and adolescents who exhibit a lower use of substances and whose parents do not have symptoms of depression at baseline. In adults, a lower age was associated with greater effects of preventive interventions. ETHICS: As this systematic review is based on published data, approval from the local ethics committee was not required.

Effectiveness of psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions to prevent postpartum depression in adolescent and adult mothers: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of postpartum depression (PPD) is 17%, and the incidence is 12% worldwide. Adverse consequences for mothers and babies have been associated with this disease. To assess the effectiveness of psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions in preventing PPD, a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) will be conducted. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A SR/MA will be performed following the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies will be identified through MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and evidencebasedtherapy.org from inception until 31 January 2020. Bridging searches will be also conducted until the review is completed. The selection criteria will be as follows: (1) subjects will be pregnant females or females who have given birth in the last 12 months and who were non-depressive at baseline; (2) psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions; (3) comparator will be usual care, attention control, waiting list or no intervention; (4) outcomes will be specific results on PPD; and (5) the design of the studies will be randomised controlled trials. No restrictions regarding the year of publication, the setting of the intervention or the language of publication will be considered. Pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be calculated. The risk of bias of the studies will be assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between the studies will be determined by the I2 and Cochran's Q statistics. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will also be performed. Publication bias will be checked with funnel plots and Egger's test. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects meta-regression analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical assessment was not required. The results will be presented at conferences and disseminated through publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018109981.