Suppr超能文献

基于幽默的干预措施对精神分裂症患者的影响。

Humour-based interventions for people with schizophrenia.

机构信息

Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine / School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.

Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, Kyoritsu Hospital, Kawanishi, Japan.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 13;10(10):CD013367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013367.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Humour-based interventions are defined as any intervention that promotes health and wellness by stimulating a playful discovery, expression, or appreciation of the absurdity or incongruity of life's situations. Humour-based interventions can be implemented in different settings, including hospitals, nursing homes and day care centres. They have been posed as an adjunct to usual care for people with schizophrenia, but a summary of the evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of humour-based interventions as an add-on intervention to standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 31 July 2019 and 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register of trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing humour-based interventions with active controls, other psychological interventions, or standard care for people with schizophrenia. We excluded studies fulfilling our prespecified selection criteria but without useable data from further quantitative synthesis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality, following the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For binary outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risks of bias for included studies and created summary of findings tables using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies in this review for qualitative synthesis, although one study did not report any relevant outcomes. We therefore include two studies (n = 96) in our quantitative synthesis. No data were available on the following prespecified primary outcomes: clinically-important change in general mental state, clinically-important change in negative symptoms, clinically-important change in overall quality of life, and adverse effects. As compared with active control, humour-based interventions may not improve the average endpoint score of a general mental state scale (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score: MD -1.70, 95% CI -17.01 to 13.61; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence); positive symptoms (PANSS positive symptom score: MD 0.00, 95% CI -2.58 to 2.58; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence), negative symptoms (PANSS negative symptom score: MD -0.70, 95% CI -4.22 to 2.82; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence) and anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): MD -2.60, 95% CI -5.76 to 0.56; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Due to the small sample size, we remain uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early as compared with active control (no event, 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence). On the other hand, humour-based interventions may reduce depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): MD -6.20, 95% CI -12.08 to -0.32; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Compared with standard care, humour-based interventions may not improve  depressive symptoms (BDI second edition: MD 0.80, 95% CI -2.64 to 4.24; 1 study, 59 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early for any reason compared with standard care (risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.80; 1 study, 66 participants; very low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are currently uncertain whether the evidence supports the use of humour-based interventions in people with schizophrenia. Future research with rigorous and transparent methodology investigating clinically important outcomes is warranted.

摘要

背景

幽默干预被定义为通过激发对生活情境的荒谬或不协调的有趣、表达或欣赏,促进健康和幸福的任何干预。幽默干预可以在不同的环境中实施,包括医院、养老院和日托中心。它们已被提议作为精神分裂症患者常规护理的辅助手段,但缺乏相关证据的总结。

目的

研究作为精神分裂症患者标准护理附加干预的幽默干预的效果。

检索方法

我们于 2019 年 7 月 31 日和 2021 年 2 月 10 日检索了 Cochrane 精神分裂症组的试验基础注册库,该注册库基于 CENTRAL、CINAHL、ClinicalTrials.gov、Embase、ISRCTN、MEDLINE、PsycINFO、PubMed 和 WHO ICTRP。

选择标准

我们纳入了所有比较幽默干预与积极对照、其他心理干预或精神分裂症患者标准护理的随机对照试验。我们排除了符合我们预先指定的选择标准但没有可用于进一步定量综合的可用数据的研究。

数据收集和分析

两名综述作者独立检查了引文、选择研究、提取数据并评估了研究质量,遵循了 Cochrane 干预系统评价手册的指导。对于二分类结局,我们计算了风险比(RR)及其 95%置信区间(CI)。对于连续性结局,我们计算了平均差异(MD)及其 95%CI。我们评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险,并使用 GRADE 方法创建了总结发现表。

主要结果

我们对定性合成纳入了三项研究,但其中一项研究没有报告任何相关结局。因此,我们对两项研究(n=96)进行了定量综合分析。以下是预先指定的主要结局指标的数据不可用:一般精神状态的临床重要变化、阴性症状的临床重要变化、整体生活质量的临床重要变化和不良反应。与积极对照相比,幽默干预可能不会改善一般精神状态量表的平均终点评分(阳性和阴性综合征量表(PANSS)总分:MD-1.70,95%CI-17.01 至 13.61;1 项研究,30 名参与者;极低确定性证据);阳性症状(PANSS 阳性症状评分:MD0.00,95%CI-2.58 至 2.58;1 项研究,30 名参与者;低确定性证据)、阴性症状(PANSS 阴性症状评分:MD-0.70,95%CI-4.22 至 2.82;1 项研究,30 名参与者;极低确定性证据)和焦虑(状态-特质焦虑量表(STAI):MD-2.60,95%CI-5.76 至 0.56;1 项研究,30 名参与者;低确定性证据)。由于样本量小,我们仍然不确定幽默干预与积极对照相比,早期退出研究的效果(无事件,1 项研究,30 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。另一方面,幽默干预可能会减轻抑郁症状(贝克抑郁量表(BDI):MD-6.20,95%CI-12.08 至-0.32;1 项研究,30 名参与者;低确定性证据)。与标准护理相比,幽默干预可能不会改善抑郁症状(BDI 第二版:MD0.80,95%CI-2.64 至 4.24;1 项研究,59 名参与者;低确定性证据)。我们不确定幽默干预与标准护理相比,任何原因的早期退出研究的效果(风险比 0.38,95%CI 0.08 至 1.80;1 项研究,66 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。

作者结论

我们目前不确定幽默干预是否支持在精神分裂症患者中使用。需要进行具有严格和透明方法的未来研究,以调查临床重要结局。

相似文献

1
Humour-based interventions for people with schizophrenia.基于幽默的干预措施对精神分裂症患者的影响。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 13;10(10):CD013367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013367.pub2.
3
Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia.认知行为疗法(团体)治疗精神分裂症。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 12;7(7):CD009608. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009608.pub2.
4
Algorithm-based pain management for people with dementia in nursing homes.基于算法的养老院痴呆患者疼痛管理。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 1;4(4):CD013339. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013339.pub2.
7
Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.心理健康问题患者的共同决策干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 11;11(11):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub3.
8
Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.干预措施以控制 COVID-19 患者的姑息症状。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Aug 23;8(8):CD015061. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015061.
9
Pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care for adults with asthma.肺康复治疗与常规护理对哮喘成人的影响比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Aug 22;8(8):CD013485. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013485.pub2.

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验