SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Witt K, de Moraes DP, Salisbury TT, Aren S Man E, Gunnell D, Hazell P, Townsend E, van Heeringen CK, Hawton K. J. Affect. Disord. 2018; 235: 434-447.

Affiliation

Centre for Suicide Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: keith.hawton@psych.ox.ac.uk.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.025

PMID

29679896

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the mainstay of evaluations of the efficacy of psychosocial interventions. In a recent Cochrane systematic review we analysed the efficacy of cognitive behavioural-based psychotherapies compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in adults who self-harm. In this study we examine the content and reporting quality of TAU in these trials and their relationship to outcomes.

METHODS: Five electronic databases (CCDANCTR-Studies and References, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) were searched for RCTs, indexed between 1 January 1998 and 30 April 2015, of cognitive-behavioural interventions compared to TAU for adults following a recent (within six months) episode of self-harm. Comparisons were made between outcomes for trials which included different categories of TAU, which were grouped as: multidisciplinary treatment, psychotherapy only, pharmacotherapy only, treatment by primary care physician, minimal contact, or unclear.

RESULTS: 18 trials involving 2433 participants were included. The content and reporting quality of TAU varied considerably between trials. The apparent effectiveness of cognitive behavioural psychotherapy varied according to TAU reporting quality and content. Specifically, effects in favour of cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy were strongest in trials in which TAU content was not clearly described (Odds Ratio: 0.29, 95% Confidence Interval 0.15-0.62; three trials) compared to those in which TAU comprised multidisciplinary treatment (Odds Ratio: 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97; 12 trials). LIMITATIONS: The included trials had high risk of bias with respect to participant and clinical personnel blinding, and unclear risk of bias for selective outcome reporting.

CONCLUSIONS: TAU content and quality represents an important source of heterogeneity between trials of psychotherapeutic interventions for prevention of self-harm. Before clinical trials begin, researchers should plan to carefully describe both aspects of TAU to improve the overall quality of investigations.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


Language: en

Keywords

Clinical trials; Methodology; Self-harm; Suicide; Treatment as usual

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print