Research and Innovation, Silverchain, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Mar 19;3(3):CD013059. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013059.pub2.
Depression is common amongst older people residing in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Currently, most residents treated for depression are prescribed antidepressant medications, despite the potential availability of psychological therapies that are suitable for older people and a preference amongst many older people for non-pharmacological treatment approaches.
To assess the effect of psychological therapies for depression in older people living in LTC settings, in comparison with treatment as usual, waiting list control, and non-specific attentional control; and to compare the effectiveness of different types of psychological therapies in this setting.
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, five grey literature sources, and two trial registers. We performed reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was 31 October 2021.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of any type of psychological therapy for the treatment of depression in adults aged 65 years and over residing in a LTC facility.
Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. Primary outcomes were level of depressive symptomatology and treatment non-acceptability; secondary outcomes included depression remission, quality of life or psychological well-being, and level of anxious symptomatology. We used Review Manager 5 to conduct meta-analyses, using pairwise random-effects models. For continuous data, we calculated standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using endpoint data, and for dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and 95% CIs. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
We included 19 RCTs with 873 participants; 16 parallel group RCTs and three cluster-RCTs. Most studies compared psychological therapy (typically including elements of cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, reminiscence therapy, or a combination of these) to treatment as usual or to a condition controlling for the effects of attention. We found very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapies were more effective than non-therapy control conditions in reducing symptoms of depression, with a large effect size at end-of-intervention (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.58; 18 RCTs, 644 participants) and at short-term (up to three months) follow-up (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.56; 16 RCTs, 512 participants). In addition, very low-certainty evidence from a single study with 82 participants indicated that psychological therapy was associated with a greater reduction in the number of participants presenting with major depressive disorder compared to treatment as usual control, at end-of-intervention and short-term follow-up. However, given the limited data on the effect of psychological therapies on remission of major depressive disorder, caution is advised in interpreting this result. Participants receiving psychological therapy were more likely to drop out of the trial than participants receiving a non-therapy control (odds ratio 3.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 9.93), which may indicate higher treatment non-acceptability. However, analyses were restricted due to limited dropout case data and imprecise reporting, and the finding should be interpreted with caution. There was very low-certainty evidence that psychological therapy was more effective than non-therapy control conditions in improving quality of life and psychological well-being at short-term follow-up, with a medium effect size (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, 170 participants), but the effect size was small at postintervention (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.82; 6 RCTs, 195 participants). There was very low-certainty evidence of no effect of psychological therapy on anxiety symptoms postintervention (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -2.50 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 115 participants), although results lacked precision, and there was insufficient data to determine short-term outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy, behavioural therapy, and reminiscence therapy may reduce depressive symptoms compared with usual care for LTC residents, but the evidence is very uncertain. Psychological therapies may also improve quality of life and psychological well-being amongst depressed LTC residents in the short term, but may have no effect on symptoms of anxiety in depressed LTC residents, compared to control conditions. However, the evidence for these effects is very uncertain, limiting our confidence in the findings. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and higher-quality RCTs of psychological therapies in LTC, including trials with larger samples, reporting results separately for those with and without cognitive impairment and dementia, and longer-term outcomes to determine when effects wane.
抑郁在长期护理(LTC)机构中居住的老年人中很常见。目前,大多数接受抑郁治疗的患者都被开了抗抑郁药,尽管针对老年人有潜在的心理治疗方法,而且许多老年人更喜欢非药物治疗方法。
评估心理疗法对 LTC 环境中老年人抑郁的疗效,与常规治疗、等待名单对照和非特定注意力对照相比;并比较不同类型的心理疗法在这种环境下的效果。
我们检索了 Cochrane 常见精神障碍组对照试验登记处、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、其他五个数据库、两个灰色文献来源和两个试验登记处。我们进行了参考文献检查和引文搜索,并联系了研究作者以确定其他研究。最新的搜索是在 2021 年 10 月 31 日。
我们纳入了任何类型的心理治疗(包括认知行为疗法、行为疗法、怀旧疗法或这些疗法的组合)治疗 65 岁及以上居住在 LTC 机构的成年人抑郁的随机对照试验(RCT)和集群 RCT。
两位综述作者独立筛选标题/摘要和全文手稿的纳入情况。两位综述作者独立使用 Cochrane RoB 1 工具进行数据提取和风险偏倚评估。我们在需要时联系了研究作者以获取更多信息。主要结局是抑郁症状的严重程度和治疗不可接受性;次要结局包括抑郁缓解、生活质量或心理幸福感以及焦虑症状的严重程度。我们使用 Review Manager 5 进行荟萃分析,使用成对随机效应模型。对于连续性数据,我们使用终点数据计算标准化均数差异和 95%置信区间(CI),对于二分类数据,我们使用比值比和 95%CI。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了 19 项 RCT,涉及 873 名参与者;其中 16 项平行组 RCT 和 3 项集群 RCT。大多数研究将心理治疗(通常包括认知行为疗法、行为疗法、怀旧疗法或这些疗法的组合)与常规治疗或注意力控制条件进行了比较。我们发现,心理疗法在减少抑郁症状方面比非治疗对照条件更有效,在干预结束时(SMD-1.04,95%CI-1.49 至-0.58;18 项 RCT,644 名参与者)和短期(最长三个月)随访时(SMD-1.03,95%CI-1.49 至-0.56;16 项 RCT,512 名参与者)具有非常低的确定性证据。此外,一项涉及 82 名参与者的单中心研究表明,与常规治疗对照相比,心理疗法在干预结束和短期随访时与减少主要抑郁障碍的参与者数量相关,这表明治疗不可接受性更高。接受心理治疗的参与者比接受非治疗对照的参与者更有可能退出试验(比值比 3.44,95%CI 1.19 至 9.93),这可能表明治疗不可接受性更高。然而,由于关于心理疗法对主要抑郁障碍缓解效果的数据有限,因此应谨慎解释这一结果。与非治疗对照相比,心理疗法在短期随访时更能改善生活质量和心理幸福感,效果中等(SMD 0.51,95%CI 0.19 至 0.82;5 项 RCT,170 名参与者),但在干预后效果较小(SMD 0.40,95%CI-0.02 至 0.82;6 项 RCT,195 名参与者)。非常低确定性证据表明,心理疗法对干预后焦虑症状没有影响(SMD-0.68,95%CI-2.50 至 1.14;2 项 RCT,115 名参与者),尽管结果缺乏精确性,并且缺乏短期结果的数据。
这项系统评价表明,认知行为疗法、行为疗法和怀旧疗法可能比 LTC 居民的常规护理更能减轻抑郁症状,但证据非常不确定。心理疗法也可能在短期内改善抑郁的 LTC 居民的生活质量和心理幸福感,但与对照条件相比,对抑郁的 LTC 居民的焦虑症状可能没有影响。然而,这些效果的证据非常不确定,限制了我们对这些发现的信心。通过更好地报告和更高质量的 LTC 心理疗法 RCT,可以加强证据,包括更大样本量的试验、分别报告有和没有认知障碍和痴呆症的结果,以及更长时间的结局,以确定效果何时减弱。