METHODS: The PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were initially searched from inception to 11 September 2023. Studies were included if they were published in English and had followed up subjects with clinically diagnosed SM for at least two years. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework. The papers were assessed using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies tool.
RESULTS: This review screened 2,432 papers and assessed 18 studies. Seven case series studies were excluded from discussion because of the low number of subjects and the fact that their findings could not be generalized to wider populations. In the end, nine clinical cohorts and two case control studies were reviewed. These provided a total of 292 subjects and the sample sizes ranged from 11-49. The overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review found that 190 of the 243 subjects in the studies that reported recovery rates showed moderate or total improvement from SM during follow up. Other anxiety disorders were the most common psychiatric disorders later in life, although these results should be interpreted with caution. Older age at baseline and parental psychopathology might predict greater impairment, but further studies are needed to confirm these results.
CONCLUSIONS: Most subjects with SM recovered from this disorder during adolescence, but anxiety disorders were common in later life. Early detection and treatment are needed to prevent symptoms from persisting and other psychiatric disorders from developing.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities and quality of life among women with non-metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 16 March 2021. We also scanned the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 randomised controlled trials comprising 7998 participants. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. The updated review included 7998 randomised women; the original review included 3940 women. A wide range of interventions was evaluated. Most interventions were cognitive- or mindfulness-based, supportive-expressive, and educational. The interventions were mainly delivered face-to-face (56 studies) and in groups (50 studies) rather than individually (10 studies). Most intervention sessions were delivered on a weekly basis with an average duration of 14 hours. Follow-up time ranged from two weeks to 24 months. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated that the intervention may reduce depression (SMD -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.02; P = 0.04; 27 studies, 3321 participants, I2 = 91%, low-certainty evidence); anxiety (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.17; P = 0.0009; 22 studies, 2702 participants, I2 = 89%, low-certainty evidence); mood disturbance in the intervention group (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.009; 13 studies, 2276 participants, I2 = 56%, low-certainty evidence); and stress (SMD -0.34, 95% (CI) -0.55 to -0.12; P = 0.002; 8 studies, 564 participants, I2 = 31%, low-certainty evidence). The intervention is likely to improve quality of life in the intervention group (SMD 0.78, 95% (CI) 0.32 to 1.24; P = 0.0008; 20 studies, 1747 participants, I2 = 95%, low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, psychological intervention may have produced favourable effects on psychological outcomes, in particular depression, anxiety, mood disturbance and stress. There was also an improvement in quality of life in the psychological intervention group compared to control group. Overall, there was substantial variation across the studies in the range of psychological interventions used, control conditions, measures of the same outcome and timing of follow-up.
Methods: 61 students aged 9-12 years with high levels of anxiety participated in the study. Intervention A (n = 20) consisted of 9-hour eclectic therapy for children with 3-hour group guidance sessions for their mothers. Intervention B (n = 20) consisted of 9-hour eclectic therapy for children. There was also a control group (n = 21).
Results: Teacher ratings of children's mental health difficulties and self-report ratings of anxiety disorders indicated a significant difference from pretest to posttest, revealing a large effect size between the two interventions. Higher levels of pretest scores significantly predicted higher posttest scores for all domains of anxiety and mental health difficulties. Furthermore, age, gender, mothers working a 15-hour day, mother's educational level, parental divorce rates, parental death, and family monthly income predicted therapy outcomes.
Conclusion: Results provide support for the effectiveness of eclectic art and CBT to improve children's mental health and reduce anxiety through changing thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and behaviors that may cause fear and anxiety.