METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind RCT (October 2017 -May 2019) with Chin (39.3%), Kachin (15.7%), and Rohingya (45%) refugees living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The trial included 170 participants receiving six 45-minute weekly sessions of IAT (97.6% retention, 4 lost to follow-up) and 161 receiving a multicomponent CBT also involving six 45-minute weekly sessions (96.8% retention, 5 lost to follow-up). Participants (mean age: 30.8 years, SD = 9.6) had experienced and/or witnessed an average 10.1 types (SD = 5.9, range = 1-27) of traumatic events. We applied a single-blind design in which independent assessors of pre- and posttreatment indices were masked in relation to participants' treatment allocation status. Primary outcomes were symptom scores of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the 5 scales of the Adaptive Stress Index (ASI), and a measure of resilience (the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [CDRS]). Compared to CBT, an intention-to-treat analysis (n = 331) at 6-week posttreatment follow-up demonstrated greater reductions in the IAT arm for all common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms and ASI domains except for ASI-3 (injustice), as well as increases in the resilience scores. Adjusted average treatment effects assessing the differences in posttreatment scores between IAT and CBT (with baseline scores as covariates) were -0.08 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.02, p = 0.012) for PTSD, -0.07 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.01) for CPTSD, -0.07 for MDD (95% CI: -0.13 to -0.01, p = 0.025), 0.16 for CDRS (95% CI: 0.06-0.026, p ≤ 0.001), -0.12 (95% CI: -0.20 to -0.03, p ≤ 0.001) for ASI-1 (safety/security), -0.10 for ASI-2 (traumatic losses; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02, p = 0.02), -0.03 for ASI-3 (injustice; (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.06, p = 0.513), -0.12 for ASI-4 (role/identity disruptions; 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.04, p ≤ 0.001), and -0.18 for ASI-5 (existential meaning; 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.05, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to CBT, the IAT group had larger effect sizes for all indices (except for resilience) including PTSD (IAT, d = 0.93 versus CBT, d = 0.87), CPTSD (d = 1.27 versus d = 1.02), MDD (d = 1.4 versus d = 1.11), ASI-1 (d = 1.1 versus d = 0.85), ASI-2 (d = 0.81 versus d = 0.66), ASI-3 (d = 0.49 versus d = 0.42), ASI-4 (d = 0.86 versus d = 0.67), and ASI-5 (d = 0.72 versus d = 0.53). No adverse events were recorded for either therapy. Limitations include a possible allegiance effect (the authors inadvertently conveying disproportionate enthusiasm for IAT in training and supervision), cross-over effects (counsellors applying elements of one therapy in delivering the other), and the brief period of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CBT, IAT showed superiority in improving mental health symptoms and adaptative stress from baseline to 6-week posttreatment. The differences in scores between IAT and CBT were modest and future studies conducted by independent research teams need to confirm the findings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered under Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (http://www.anzctr.org.au/). The trial registration number is: ACTRN12617001452381.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Well-being of the Singapore Elderly (WiSE) study was a comprehensive single phase, cross-sectional survey. Stage 1 Geriatric Mental State-Automated Geriatric Examination for Computer Assisted Taxonomy (GMS-AGECAT) depression syndrome was used for this analysis. Association of depression and subsyndromal depression with sociodemographic characteristics, social support as well as comorbidity with chronic physical illnesses and quality of life was assessed.
RESULTS: The prevalence of GMS-AGECAT depression and subsyndromal depression was 3.7% and 13.4%, respectively. The odds of depression were significantly higher among those aged 75 to 84 (2.1) as compared to those aged 60 to 74 years and in those who had a history of depression diagnosis by a doctor (4.1). The odds of depression were higher among those of Indian and Malay ethnicities (5.2 and 3.2 times, respectively) as compared to those of Chinese ethnicity. Those with depression and subsyndromal depression were associated with more disability, poorer life satisfaction, and medical comorbidities.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that the prevalence of depression seems to have decreased as compared to a decade ago wherein the prevalence of depression was estimated to be 5.5%. This positive trend can be ascribed to concerted efforts across various disciplines and sectors, which need to be continually strengthened, monitored and evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for the current study came from the Well-being of the Singapore Elderly (WiSE) study; a single phase, cross-sectional survey conducted among Singapore residents aged 60 years and above. A total of 2565 respondents completed the survey; depression was assessed using the Automated Geriatric Examination for Computer Assisted Taxonomy (AGECAT) while a diagnosis of DM was considered if respondents stated that a doctor had diagnosed them with DM.
RESULTS: DM was reported by 25.5% of the population. The prevalence of depression was significantly higher in those diagnosed with DM than those without DM (6% vs 3%). After adjusting for sociodemographic correlates, smoking and other chronic conditions, DM remained significantly associated with depression and subsyndromal depression. However, after including measures of functioning and cognitive impairment as covariates, DM was not significantly related to depression and subsyndromal depression. Those with comorbid DM and depression were more likely to be of Indian and Malay ethnicity, aged 75 to 84 years (versus 60 to 74 years) and widowed.
CONCLUSION: Given the significant association of certain sociodemographic groups with comorbid depression among those with DM, targeted interventions for prevention and early diagnosis in these groups should be considered.