A web-survey assessed attitudes toward evidence-based practice among psychotherapists in Austria.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) means integrating the best available scientific evidence with clinical experience and patient values. Although perceived as important by many psychotherapists, there still seems to be reluctance to use empirically supported therapies in clinical practice. We aimed to assess the attitudes of psychotherapists in Austria toward EBP in psychotherapy as well as factors influencing the implementation of EBP. We conducted an online survey. To investigate attitudes toward EBP, we used two subscales ("Limitations" and "Balance") of a translated and validated short version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale-36 (EBPAS-36). Participants provided perceived barriers and facilitators as answers to open-ended questions. We analyzed the responses mainly using descriptive statistics. Open answers were analyzed using a thematic analysis. In total, 238 psychotherapists completed our survey (mean age 51.0 years, standard deviation [SD] = 9.9, 76.9% female). Psychotherapists scored on average 2.62 (SD = 0.89) on the reversed EBPAS-36 subscale "Limitations," indicating that the majority do not perceive EBP as limiting their practice as psychotherapists. They scored 1.43 (SD = 0.69) on the reversed EBPAS-36 subscale "Balance," indicating that psychotherapists on average put a higher value on the art of psychotherapy than on evidence-based approaches. Organizational factors such as lack of time and access to research studies as well as negative attitudes toward research and a lack of skills and knowledge kept respondents from implementing EBP. Our study highlights that EBP is still not very popular within the psychotherapy community in Austria. The academization of psychotherapy training might change this in the future.

Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction. RESULTS: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive. CONCLUSION: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.

Restricting evidence syntheses of interventions to English-language publications is a viable methodological shortcut for most medical topics: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of restricting systematic reviews of conventional or alternative medical treatments or diagnostic tests to English-language publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and Current Contents Connect (Web of Science) up to April 24, 2020. Eligible methods studies assessed the impact of restricting systematic reviews to English-language publications on effect estimates and conclusions. Two reviewers independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, a second investigator checked for completeness and accuracy. We synthesized the findings narratively. RESULTS: Eight methods studies (10 publications) met the inclusion criteria; none addressed language restrictions in diagnostic test accuracy reviews. The included studies analyzed nine to 147 meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. The proportions of non-English-language publications ranged from 2% to 100%. Based on five methods studies, restricting literature searches or inclusion criteria to English-language publications led to a change in statistical significance in 23/259 meta-analyses (9%). Most commonly, the statistical significance was lost, but had no impact on the conclusions of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Restricting systematic reviews to English-language publications appears to have little impact on the effect estimates and conclusions of systematic reviews.

Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether limiting the inclusion criteria solely to English-language publications affected the overall conclusions of evidence syntheses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Our analyses used a dataset of a previous methods study that included 59 randomly selected Cochrane intervention reviews with no language restrictions. First, we ascertained the publication language of all 2,026 included publications. Next, we excluded studies based on the following criteria: (1) publication solely in non-English language, or (2) main publication (in case of multiple publications of the same study) in non-English language. We then re-calculated meta-analyses for outcomes that were presented in the main summary of findings tables of the Cochrane reports. If the direction of the effect estimate or the statistical significance changed, authors of the respective Cochrane reviews were consulted to assess whether the new evidence base would have changed their conclusions. The primary outcome of our analyses examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of non-English publications. We set the threshold for the approach as noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of changed conclusions did not cross a margin of 10%. RESULTS: Across all 59 Cochrane reviews, 29 (49%) included 80 non-English publications. For 16 (27%) of these Cochrane reviews, the exclusion of non-English publications resulted in the exclusion of at least one study. In the remaining 13 Cochrane reviews, the non-English publications were not the only or main publication of the study or they did not contribute to the main summary of the findings table, so their exclusion did not result in an exclusion of the study. Overall, the exclusion of non-English publications led to the exclusion of 31 studies contributing to 40 outcomes. For 38 of the 40 outcomes, the exclusion of non-English studies did not markedly alter the size or direction of effect estimates or statistical significance. In two outcomes, the statistical significance changed, but authors would have still drawn the same conclusion, albeit with less certainty. Thus, the proportion of changed conclusions in our sample was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-0.6), which indicated the noninferiority of the approach. However, the majority of excluded studies were small. CONCLUSION: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews.

Prevention of seasonal affective disorder in daily clinical practice: results of a survey in German-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonally recurrent type of major depression. This predictable aspect makes it promising for preventive treatment. However, evidence for the efficacy and harm of preventive treatment of SAD is scarce, as are recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the current use of preventive treatment of SAD in clinical practice in German-speaking countries for the first time. METHODS: We conducted a postal and web-based survey sent to the heads of all psychiatric institutions listed in the inventory "Deutsches Krankenhaus Adressbuch, 2015" that contains all psychiatric hospitals in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. RESULTS: One hundred institutions (out of 533 institutions, 19%), which treated in total more than 3100 SAD patients in the years 2014/2015, responded. Of those, 81 reported recommending preventive treatment to patients with a history of SAD. There was no consensus on the optimal starting point for preventive treatment. Most of the institutions that implemented prevention of SAD, recommended lifestyle changes (85%), antidepressants (84%), psychotherapy (73%), and light therapy (72%) to their patients. The situation was similar in northern and southern regions. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals recommended the use of preventive treatment to SAD patients, although evidence on efficacy and harm is limited. A wide variety of interventions were recommended, although guidelines only include recommendations for acute treatment. To assist psychiatrists and patients in future decision making, controlled studies on preventive treatment for SAD that compare different interventions with one another are needed.