Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- major depression (2) (remove)
Background:
Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update -AMSTAR 2 -is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012-2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined.
Results:
In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated "high", two were "moderate", one was "low" and 53 were "critically low". The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor.
Limitations:
AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score.
Conclusions:
According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed.
Objectives:
The prevalence rates for mental health (MH) problems in cancer patients is high, although reduced uptake of services may be influenced by mental health literacy (MHL). The objective of this study was to investigate the MHL for depression and panic disorder (PD), including treatment preferences in Australian adults who had been diagnosed and treated for cancer, and whether MHL and treatment preferences was influenced by sex, age, and individuals' lived MH experience.
Method:
A total of 421 cancer survivors (n = 378 females) completed a self-report survey. Participants were asked to specify whether they had a lived experience with anxiety and/or depression, and to indicate treatment preferences for managing cancer-related distress. Two vignettes were administered to assess MHL for depression and PD.
Results:
The MHL accuracy for depression was higher than PD. Accuracy rates were higher for females with a lived experience with anxiety and/or depression; although the accuracy rate for PD was significantly lower in males. A high proportion of individuals preferred exercise and in-person counselling to manage depression and PD. Internet-based therapies were not strongly preferred for managing MH problems.
Conclusions:
The MHL for depression and PD is moderate for adult cancer survivors, with higher levels indicated for individuals with a personal lived experience with anxiety and/or depression. Public health campaigns for enhancing MHL should broaden to include individuals experiencing comorbid physical health conditions. Health providers also need to take into account client preferences for evidence-based therapies.