Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment. METHOD: PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 - 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 81.25). Specialist treatment produced large effects compared to both waitlist control (g = 1.46, 95%CI = 0.96 - 1.96) and care as usual (g = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.27 - 1.25). Treatment provided by non-specialists was only superior to waitlist control (g = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.31 - 1.28). We identified relatively few studies (n = 4) of medications, which reported small to moderate effects for SSRI/SNRI medications and hydroxyzine. The quality of included studies was variable and most studies had at least "unclear" risk of bias in one or more key domains. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659.

Autism spectrum disorder and interoception: Abnormalities in global integration?

Research over the past three decades has seen a revived interest in the way the human body-and the way in which it is perceived-interacts with aspects of our experience. Consequently, interoception (i.e. the perception of physiological feedback from the body) has recently been shown to be associated with a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and affective functions, making it broadly relevant to the study of autism spectrum disorder. Although limited qualitative accounts and empirical studies suggest that individuals with autism spectrum disorder encounter abnormalities when perceiving and integrating physiological feedback from their bodies, other studies have suggested that people with/without autism spectrum disorder do not differ in interoceptive ability after accounting for alexithymia. In this article, we discuss the newly recognized importance of interoception in autism spectrum disorder with a focus on how deficits in the perception of bodily feedback might relate to the core features and co-occuring psychopathology of autism spectrum disorder. Finally, a new integrated theory is advanced which posits that people with autism spectrum disorder may experience a reduced capacity to integrate interoceptive information that may result in a narrow attentional bodily focus and reduced motivational and behavioral drives.