PURPOSE: Applying self-regulation theory, we conducted a randomized, controlled trial testing the efficacy of mental imagery techniques promoting arousal reduction and implementation intentions to improve sleep behavior.
METHOD: We randomly assigned 104 business employees to four imagery-based interventions: arousal reduction, implementation intentions, combined arousal reduction and implementation intentions, or control imagery. Participants practiced their techniques daily for 21 days. They completed online measures of sleep quality, behaviors, and self-efficacy at baseline and Day 21; and daily measures of sleep behaviors.
RESULTS: Participants using implementation intention imagery exhibited greater improvements in self-efficacy, sleep behaviors, sleep quality, and time to sleep relative to participants using arousal reduction and control imagery.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation intention imagery can improve sleep behavior for daytime employees. Use of arousal reduction imagery was unsupported. Self-regulation imagery techniques show promise for improving sleep behaviors.
METHODS: A systematic review with a detailed search strategy focussing on psychosocial interventions directed towards people affected by addiction without any gender, year or language specifications was conducted. Identified titles and abstracts were screened; where needed full papers retrieved, and then independently reviewed. Data was extracted based on the aims of the study, to describe the modalities, acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of the interventions.
RESULTS: Four papers met our selection criteria. They were published between 2003 and 2014; the total sample size was 137 participants, and two studies were from Mexico and one each from Vietnam and Malaysia. The predominantly female participants comprised of parents, spouses and siblings. The common components of all the interventions included providing information regarding addiction, teaching coping skills, and providing support. Though preliminary these small studies suggests a positive effect on affected family members (AFM). There was lowering of psychological and physical distress, along with a better understanding of addictive behaviour. The interventions led to better coping; with improvements in self-esteem and assertive behaviour. The interventions, mostly delivered in group settings, were largely acceptable.
CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence does suggest positive benefits to AFMs. The scope of research needs to be extended to other addictions, and family members other than spouse and female relatives. Indigenous and locally adapted interventions are needed to address this issue keeping in mind the limited resources of LMIC. This is a field indeed in its infancy and this under recognised and under-served group needs urgent attention of researchers and policy makers.
METHODS: Participants answered a needs assessment questionnaire eliciting information about their illness perception (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ)), emotions (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), willingness to participate in psychological interventions, preferences in types of PPI and intervention designs, as well as barriers in seeking mental health services.
RESULTS: A total of 154 patients with epilepsy participated, with a mean age of 37.3years (range 16-86years). Most patients had focal epilepsy (68.2%), and drug-resistant (59.1%). Majority (71.4%) of them indicated a strong willingness to participate in PPI. Out of nine types of PPI, character strengths, mindfulness-based and expressive-based interventions were highly preferred. Those with negative illness perception (p=0.001), anxiety (p=0.004), and being unemployed (p=0.048) were more willing to participate in PPI. Most participants preferred group rather than individual session, and a shorter duration (30min) was favored by most.
CONCLUSION: This study captured the self-report willingness to participate in psychological interventions. Findings suggested that psychological interventions delivered in short-group session were highly preferred. Future study is required to determine the feasibility of such design for patients with epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BASE, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2014 for BASE and 21 September 2016 for all other databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of psychological interventions for DRD in adults (18 years and older) with T2DM. We included trials if they compared different psychological interventions or compared a psychological intervention with usual care. Primary outcomes were DRD, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified publications for inclusion and extracted data. We classified interventions according to their focus on emotion, cognition or emotion-cognition. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compute overall estimates.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 RCTs with 9177 participants. Sixteen trials were parallel two-arm RCTs, and seven were three-arm parallel trials. There were also seven cluster-randomised trials: two had four arms, and the remaining five had two arms. The median duration of the intervention was six months (range 1 week to 24 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 12 months). The trials included a wide spectrum of interventions and were both individual- and group-based.A meta-analysis of all psychological interventions combined versus usual care showed no firm effect on DRD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; P = 0.17; 3315 participants; 12 trials; low-quality evidence), HRQoL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.87; 1932 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (11 per 1000 versus 11 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.17 to 6.03; P = 0.99; 1376 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence) or adverse events (17 per 1000 versus 41 per 1000; RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.78 to 7.39; P = 0.13; 438 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). We saw small beneficial effects on self-efficacy and HbA1c at medium-term follow-up (6 to 12 months): on self-efficacy the SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.05; 2675 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions; on HbA1c there was a mean difference (MD) of -0.14% (95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; P = 0.05; 3165 participants; 11 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions. Our included trials did not report diabetes-related complications or socioeconomic effects.Many trials were small and were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as well as possible performance and detection biases in the subjective questionnaire-based outcomes assessment, and some appeared to be at risk of selective reporting. There are four trials awaiting further classification. These are parallel RCTs with cognition-focused and emotion-cognition focused interventions. There are another 18 ongoing trials, likely focusing on emotion-cognition or cognition, assessing interventions such as diabetes self-management support, telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy, stress management and a web application for problem solving in diabetes management. Most of these trials have a community setting and are based in the USA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that none of the psychological interventions would improve DRD more than usual care. Low-quality evidence is available for improved self-efficacy and HbA1c after psychological interventions. This means that we are uncertain about the effects of psychological interventions on these outcomes. However, psychological interventions probably have no substantial adverse events compared to usual care. More high-quality research with emotion-focused programmes, in non-US and non-European settings and in low- and middle-income countries, is needed.