| Literature DB >> 34007254 |
Supaluck Phadsri1,2, Rieko Shioji1, Atsuko Tanimura1, Jeerawit Jaknissai3, Sopida Apichai2, Tippawan Sookruay4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social withdrawal is predominantly seen among adults with depression. However, a dearth of reviews exists that explore nonpharmacological treatments, especially occupational therapy (OT) interventions and their effect in promoting social participation. The aim of this research was to review what intervention programs are conducted to support the social participation of adults with depression and their effectiveness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34007254 PMCID: PMC8102128 DOI: 10.1155/2021/8850364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Occup Ther Int ISSN: 0966-7903 Impact factor: 1.448
The level of evidence.
| Level | Type of evidence |
|---|---|
| Level I | Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials |
| Level II | Two groups, nonrandomized studies (e.g., cohort, case-control) |
| Level III | One group, nonrandomized (e.g., before and after, pretest and posttests) |
| Level IV | Descriptive studies that include analysis of outcomes (single-subject design, case series) |
| Level V | Case reports and expert opinion that include narrative literature reviews and consensus statements |
Adapted from Sackett's evidence-based medicine [20, 21] and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) [22].
Strength of evidence (level of certainty).
| Strength | Description |
|---|---|
| Strong | (i) Two or more level I studies |
| Moderate | (i) At least one level I high-quality study or multiple moderate-quality studies (level II, level III, etc.) |
| Low | (i) Small number of low-level studies, flaws in the studies, etc. |
Reference: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [24].
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram.
Study characteristics, activities or treatment program, and strength of evidence.
| Author/Ref | Level of evidence/research design | Participants, age ranges, and sample size | Outcome measures | Activity or treatment program | Result | Strength of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berget et al. 2011 [ | Level I/RCT |
| Score change; SB, SA, SSMA in BDI & STAI |
| Depression significantly decreased between baseline and six-month follow-up in both treatment and control groups, but no significant difference was observed in depression scores between the treatment and control group at any point in time. | Strong |
| Graven et al. 2011 [ | Level I/systematic review | RCT articles only | PEDro scale rating | Group 1: compared intervention group to usual care or placebo control ( | A total of 54 studies were classified into nine types. | Strong |
| Ammerman et al. 2013 [ | Level I/RCT |
| Measure at pre-, post-, and three-month follow-up treatments |
| Psychological distress decreased (broad improvement) at posttreatment and follow-up. IH-CBT increased social support (affiliative and belongingness aspects), whereas tangible support was not significant. | Strong |
| Nagy et al. 2017 [ | Level I/systematic review |
| WMHCIDI | (1) Peer support, e.g., sharing and empathizing with others | 22 of 24 studies used a combination of approaches. | Strong |
| Chen et al. 2019 [ | Level I/RCT |
| Four-time score measure; baseline (T0)—after the program (T1, T2, T3) |
| Less fear of social interactions, less avoidance of social interactions, and improved physical function during the three months after the intervention. | Strong |
| Strøm et al. 2019 [ | Level I/RCT |
| HADS |
| No significant difference within the treatment and the control group regarding changes in HADS at three-month follow-up. | Strong |
| Kern et al. 2019 [ | Level I/RCT |
| BDI-II weekly, during the baseline, six-month follow-up assessments |
| Greater improvement in hedonic capacity, environmental reward, and social impairment was associated with greater reductions in depression over six months. | Strong |
| Rogers et al. 2014 [ | Level III/pre- and posttest |
| Brief self-report questionnaire | Sports-oriented intervention using surfing in an experiential and skill-based program | Clinically meaningful improvement in PTSD severity ( | Moderate |
| Cruwys et al. 2014 [ | Level III/two longitudinal intervention studies |
|
|
| Both treatment programs contributed to a decline in depression. | Moderate |
| Croezen et al. 2015 [ | Level III/one group longitudinal study |
| Depressive symptom (EURO-D scale) | Study activities: | The prevalence of depressive symptoms declined between waves 1 and 2 but increased between waves 2 and 4. | Moderate |
Abbreviation: ADL: activity of daily living; AAT: animal-assisted therapy; BA: behavioral activation; BAI: Beck Anxiety Inventory; BCPHE: behavior change program and health education; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; BES: best evidence synthesis; BSI: Brief Symptom Inventory; CBT: cognitive behavioral therapy; DASS: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; HADS: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HFA: Healthy Families America; HNC: head and neck cancer; IH-CBT: in-home cognitive behavioral therapy; ISEL: Interpersonal Support Evaluation List; ISG: Internet Support Group; KPS: Karnofsky Performance Scale; LBPRS: low back pain rating scale; LSAS: Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; MDD: major depressive disorder; NFP: nurse-family partnership; ODI: Oswestry disability index; PEDro: Physiotherapy Evidence Database; PLF: instrumented posterolateral fusion; PTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder; QoL: quality of life; SA: score after; SB: score before; SCID-I: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, January 2007 version; SHV: standard home visiting; SNI: Social Network Index; SSMA: score six months after; STAI: the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory; UW-QoL: University of Washington Quality of Life Scale; WMHCIDI: World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview; w-SPIINA: web-based spine platform featuring interaction and information by animation; ZSRDS: Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.
Two major categories of intervention.
| Programs | Authors |
|---|---|
| Occupational-based intervention (OBI) | |
| Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) | Berget et al. 2011 [ |
| Sport or exercise program (SEP) | Graven et al. 2011 [ |
| Religious activity (RA) | Croezen et al. 2015 [ |
| Group-based activity (GBA) | Nagy et al. 2017 [ |
| Skill-building program (SBP) | Nagy et al. 2017 [ |
| Other social and community supportive program (OSCSP), which covers peer support (PS) and linking community resource (LCR) | Nagy et al. 2017 [ |
| Cognitive behavioral therapy-based intervention (CBT-BI) | |
| Web-based program (WBP) | Strøm et al. 2019 [ |
| Clinical psychotherapy group (CPG) | Cruwys et al. 2014 [ |
| Behavioral change program and health education (BCPHE) | Chen et al. 2019 [ |
| In-home cognitive behavioral therapy and home visit (IH-CBT+HV) | Ammerman et al. 2013 [ |
| Behavioral activation for depression and lifestyle intervention (BADLI) | Kern et al. 2019 [ |
| Psychoeducation (PsyE) | Nagy et al. 2017 [ |
| Psychotherapy (PsyT) | Nagy et al. 2017 [ |
Risk-of-bias table for considering nonsystematic reviews.
| Citation | Selection Bias | Performance bias | Detection bias | Attrition bias | Reporting bias | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel | Blinding of outcome assessment: self-reported outcomes | Blinding of outcome assessment: objective outcomes | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting | |
| Berget et al. 2011 [ | + | + | + | ? | ? | + | + |
| Ammerman et al. 2013 [ | + | + | + | ? | ? | + | + |
| Chen et al. 2019 [ | + | + | + | ? | ? | + | + |
| Strøm et al. 2019 [ | + | — | — | — | — | + | + |
| Kern et al. 2019 [ | + | — | ? | ? | ? | + | + |
| Rogers et al. 2014 [ | — | — | — | — | — | + | + |
| Cruwys et al. 2014 [ | — | — | — | — | — | + | + |
| Croezen et al. 2015 [ | — | — | — | ? | ? | + | + |
Categories for risk of bias: +: low risk of bias; ?: unclear risk of bias; –: high risk of bias; NA: not applicable. Risk-of-bias table format followed the guideline from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions by Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., and Sterne J.A.C., version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) [25].
Risk-of-bias table for considering systematic review (AMSTAR).
| Citation | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graven et al. 2011 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Nagy et al. 2017 [ | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
Note 1. Categories for risk of bias: +: low risk of bias; ?: unclear risk of bias; –: high risk of bias; NA: not applicable. Risk-of-bias table format followed the Development of AMSTAR by Shea et al. [26] and developing reliability and validity of AMSTAR by Shea et al. [27]. Note 2. (1) “a priori design” included? (2) Duplicate study selection/data extraction? (3) Comprehensive literature search performed? (4) Status of publication as inclusion criteria? (5) List of included/excluded studies provided? (6) Characteristics of included studies are provided? (7) Quality of studies assessed and documented? (8) Quality assessment was used appropriately? (9) Methods used to combine results appropriate? (10) Likelihood of publication bias assessed? (11) Conflict of interest stated?