Roponen Johanna, Ruusunen Anu, Absetz Pilvikki, Partonen Timo, Kuvaja-Köllner Virpi, Hujo Mika, Nuutinen Outi
Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio Campus, Kuopio, Finland.
Department of Psychiatry, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
Trials. 2021 May 17;22(1):344. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05279-5.
Depression is a highly prevalent mental disorder with major public health effects globally. It impairs the quality of life and reduces the ability to work and function, leading to increasing costs of sick leaves and disability pensions. Current treatment strategies focus on biological and psychological pathways while understating the role of lifestyle factors. Epidemiological studies have shown convincing evidence of an inverse relationship between diet quality and depression. However, only limited data are available on the therapeutic effects of diet quality improvement on depression. Using a randomized controlled trial design, our primary aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a behavioral nutrition group intervention compared to a social support intervention in the treatment of depression.
Participants (N=144, aged 20-65 years) with a diagnosis of moderate or severe depression recruited in collaboration with outpatient care units will be randomized into two arms: Food for Mind (FM) nutrition intervention (n=72) or Bring Good Mood (BGM) social support control group (n=72). Both arms will be provided with 6 group sessions over an 8-week period. FM involves improving diet quality by applying strength-based behavioral nutrition counseling and activities facilitated by a registered dietitian. The control arm comprises a befriending protocol. During the interventions, all participants will continue their treatment for depression as usual. Longitudinal data are collected at baseline, at 8 weeks, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Depressive symptoms, diet quality, eating behavior, ability to work and function, and quality of life are assessed by self-reported questionnaires. A treatment expectancy questionnaire will be administered at baseline and an acceptability questionnaire at 8 weeks. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale is used as the primary endpoint at 1 year. The results will be analyzed with linear mixed-effects models. Economic evaluation includes both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Two incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be calculated to evaluate the incremental cost per QALY and the incremental cost per improvement in CES-D.
If the intervention proves to be cost-effective and acceptable, it be can be implemented in healthcare to support the treatment of depression.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03904771 . Retrospectively registered on 5 April 2019.
抑郁症是一种高度流行的精神障碍,在全球范围内对公众健康有重大影响。它损害生活质量,降低工作和生活能力,导致病假和残疾抚恤金成本不断增加。当前的治疗策略侧重于生物和心理途径,而低估了生活方式因素的作用。流行病学研究已显示出饮食质量与抑郁症之间存在负相关关系的令人信服的证据。然而,关于改善饮食质量对抑郁症的治疗效果的数据有限。采用随机对照试验设计,我们的主要目的是研究行为营养小组干预与社会支持干预相比在治疗抑郁症方面的有效性和成本效益。
与门诊护理单位合作招募的144名年龄在20至65岁之间、被诊断为中度或重度抑郁症的参与者将被随机分为两组:“心灵食粮”(FM)营养干预组(n = 72)或“带来好心情”(BGM)社会支持对照组(n = 72)。两组都将在8周内进行6次小组会议。FM包括通过应用基于优势的行为营养咨询以及由注册营养师协助开展的活动来改善饮食质量。对照组包括一种交友方案。在干预期间,所有参与者将继续照常接受抑郁症治疗。在基线、8周、6个月和12个月随访时收集纵向数据。通过自我报告问卷评估抑郁症状、饮食质量、饮食行为、工作和生活能力以及生活质量。在基线时进行治疗期望问卷调查,在8周时进行可接受性问卷调查。使用流行病学研究中心抑郁量表作为1年时的主要终点。结果将采用线性混合效应模型进行分析。经济评估包括成本效益分析和成本效用分析。将计算两个增量成本效益比,以评估每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本以及每改善一次CES-D的增量成本。
如果该干预措施被证明具有成本效益且可接受,那么它可以在医疗保健中实施,以支持抑郁症的治疗。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03904771。于2019年4月5日追溯注册。