PROTOCOL: Mental disorder, psychological problems and terrorist behaviour: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sarma KM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9186052 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
PROTOCOL: Mental disorder, psychological problems and terrorist behaviour: A systematic review.
Sarma Kiran M KM Carthy Sarah L SL Cox Katie M KM
Campbell systematic reviews 20220610 2
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: the first objective of the review (Objective 1-Prevalence) is to present a synthesis of the reported prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples. Where sufficient data is available, the synthesis will be sensitive to the heterogeneity of the terrorism phenomenon by exploring the rates of mental health difficulties for different forms of terrorism and for different terrorist roles (e.g., ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe link between mental health difficulties and terrorist behaviour has been the subject of debate for the last 50 years. Studies that report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples or compare rates for those involved and not involved in terrorism, can inform this debate and the work of those responsible for countering violent extremism.ObjectivesTo synthesise the prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples (Objective 1-Prevalence) and prevalence of mental health disorders pre-dating involvement in terrorism (Objective 2-Temporality). The review also synthesises the extent to which mental health difficulties are associated with terrorist involvement compared to non-terrorist samples (Objective 3-Risk Factor).Search methodsSearches were conducted between April and June 2022, capturing research until December 2021. We contacted expert networks, hand-searched specialist journals, harvested records from published reviews, and examined references lists for included papers to identify additional studies.Selection criteriaStudies needed to empirically examine mental health difficulties and terrorism. To be included under Objective 1 (Prevalence) and Objective 2 (Temporality), studies had to adopt cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control design and report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples, with studies under Objective 2 also needing to report prevalence of difficulties before detection or involvement in terrorism. For Objective 3 (Risk Factor) studies where there was variability in terrorist behaviour (involved vs. not involved) were included.Data collection and analysisCaptured records were screened in DisillterSR by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and random-effects meta-analysis conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.ResultsFifty-six papers reporting on 73 different terrorist samples (i.e., studies) (n = 13,648) were identified. All were eligible for Objective 1. Of the 73 studies, 10 were eligible for Objective 2 (Temporality) and nine were eligible for Objective 3 (Risk Factor). For Objective 1, the life-time prevalence rate of diagnosed mental disorder in terrorist samples (k = 18) was 17.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 11.1%-26.3%]. When collapsing all studies reporting psychological problems, disorder, and suspected disorder into one meta-analyses (k = 37), the pooled prevalence rate was 25.5% (95% CI = 20.2%-31.6%). When isolating studies reporting data for any mental health difficulty that emerged before either engagement in terrorism or detection for terrorist offences (Objective 2: Temporality), the life-time prevalence rate was 27.8% (95% CI = 20.9%-35.9%). For Objective 3 (Risk Factor), it was not appropriate to calculate a pooled effect size due the differences in comparison samples. Odds ratios for these studies ranged from 0.68 (95% CI = 0.38-1.22) to 3.13 (95% CI = 1.87-5.23). All studies were assessed as having high-risk of bias which, in part, reflects challenges conducting terrorism research.Author's conclusionsThis review does not support the assertion that terrorist samples are characterised by higher rates of mental health difficulties than would be expected in the general population. Findings have implications for future research in terms of design and reporting. There are also implications for practice with regards the inclusion of mental health difficulties as indicators of risk.
| S-EPMC9364674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Prisoners worldwide have substantial mental health needs, but the efficacy of psychological therapy in prisons is unknown. We aimed to systematically review psychological therapies with mental health outcomes in prisoners and qualitatively summarize difficulties in conducting randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHOD:We systematically identified RCTs of psychological therapies with mental health outcomes in prisoners (37 studies). Effect sizes were calculated and meta-analyzed. Eligible studies were assessed for quality. Subgroup and metaregression analyses were conducted to examine sources of between-study heterogeneity. Thematic analysis reviewed difficulties in conducting prison RCTs. RESULTS:In 37 identified studies, psychological therapies showed a medium effect size (0.50, 95% CI [0.34, 0.66]) with high levels of heterogeneity with the most evidence for CBT and mindfulness-based trials. Studies that used no treatment (0.77, 95% CI [0.50, 1.03]) or waitlist controls (0.71, 95% CI [0.43, 1.00]) had larger effect sizes than those that had treatment-as-usual or other psychological therapies as controls (0.21, 95% CI [0.01, 0.41]). Effects were not sustained on follow-up at 3 and 6 months. No differences were found between group and individual therapy, or different treatment types. The use of a fidelity measure was associated with lower effect sizes. Qualitative analysis identified difficulties with follow-up and institutional constraints on scheduling and implementation of trials. CONCLUSIONS:CBT and mindfulness-based therapies are modestly effective in prisoners for depression and anxiety outcomes. In prisons with existing psychological therapies, more evidence is required before additional therapies can be recommended. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5518650 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7446790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveChildren and young people (CYP) from low-and-middle-income and developing countries are at risk of poor mental health and wellbeing. Yet these regions are generally under-resourced in terms of mental health services. As a first step to inform service planning and delivery in the English-speaking Caribbean we pooled the available evidence to estimate the prevalence of common mental health problems.MethodsA comprehensive search of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, LILACS, and Web of Science databases, supplemented by grey literature searches was performed until January 2022. Studies conducted in the English-speaking Caribbean that reported prevalence estimates of mental health symptomology or diagnoses in CYP were included. The Freeman-Tukey transformation was applied to calculate the weighted summary prevalence under a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were also performed to observe emerging patterns in the data. Studies were quality assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Checklist and the GRADE approach. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021283161.Results33 publications from 28 studies representing 65,034 adolescents from 14 countries met the eligibility criteria. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0.8 to 71.9% with most subgroup estimates between 20 and 30%. The overall pooled prevalence of mental health problems was 23.5% (95% CI 0.175-0.302; I2 = 99.7%). There was limited evidence of significant variation in prevalence estimates among subgroups. The quality of the body of evidence was judged as moderate.ConclusionIt is estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 adolescents in the English-speaking Caribbean experience symptoms of mental health problems. These findings highlight the importance of sensitisation, screening, and provision of appropriate services. Ongoing research identifying risk factors and validating outcome measures is also needed to inform evidence-based practice.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44192-023-00037-2.
| S-EPMC10196301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBach Flower Remedies are thought to help balance emotional state and are commonly recommended by practitioners for psychological problems and pain. We assessed whether Bach Flower Remedies (BFRs) are safe and efficacious for these indications by performing a systematic review of the literature.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and the Cochrane Library from inception until June 2008 and performed a hand-search of references from relevant key articles. For efficacy, we included all prospective studies with a control group. For safety, we also included retrospective, observational studies with more than 30 subjects. Two authors abstracted data and determined risk of bias using a recognised rating system of trial quality.ResultsFour randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two additional retrospective, observational studies were identified and included in the review. Three RCTs of BFRs for students with examination anxiety, and one RCT of BFRs for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) showed no overall benefit in comparison to placebo. Due to the number and quality of the studies the strength of the evidence is low or very low. We did not find any controlled prospective studies regarding the efficacy of BFRs for pain. Only four of the six studies included for safety explicitly reported adverse events.ConclusionMost of the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of BFRs has a high risk of bias. We conclude that, based on the reported adverse events in these six trials, BFRs are probably safe. Few controlled prospective trials of BFRs for psychological problems and pain exist. Our analysis of the four controlled trials of BFRs for examination anxiety and ADHD indicates that there is no evidence of benefit compared with a placebo intervention.
| S-EPMC2695424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the past decades, the deficient provision of evidence-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of mental health problems has become a global challenge across health care systems. In view of the ongoing diffusion of new media and mobile technologies into everyday life, Web-delivered electronic mental health (e-mental health) treatment services have been suggested to expand the access to professional help. However, the large-scale dissemination and adoption of innovative e-mental health services is progressing slowly. This discrepancy between potential and actual impact in public health makes it essential to explore public acceptability of e-mental health treatment services across health care systems.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify and evaluate recent empirical evidence for public acceptability, service preferences, and attitudes toward e-mental health treatments. On the basis of both frameworks for technology adoption and previous research, we defined (1) perceived helpfulness and (2) intentions to use e-mental health treatment services as indicators for public acceptability in the respective general population of reviewed studies. This mapping should reduce heterogeneity and help derive implications for systematic reviews and public health strategies.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Psyndex, PsycARTICLES, and Cochrane Library, using reference management software for parallel searches) to identify surveys published in English in peer-reviewed journals between January 2010 and December 2015, focusing on public perceptions about e-mental health treatments outside the context of clinical, psychosocial, or diagnostic interventions. Both indicators were obtained from previous review. Exclusion criteria further involved studies targeting specific groups or programs.ResultsThe simultaneous database search identified 76 nonduplicate records. Four articles from Europe and Australia were included in this scoping review. Sample sizes ranged from 217 to 2411 participants of ages 14-95 years. All included studies used cross-sectional designs and self-developed measures for outcomes related to both defined indicators of public acceptability. Three surveys used observational study designs, whereas one study was conducted as an experiment investigating the impact of brief educational information on attitudes. Taken together, the findings of included surveys suggested that e-mental health treatment services were perceived as less helpful than traditional face-to-face interventions. Additionally, intentions to future use e-mental health treatments were overall smaller in comparison to face-to-face services. Professional support was essential for help-seeking intentions in case of psychological distress. Therapist-assisted e-mental health services were preferred over unguided programs. Unexpectedly, assumed associations between familiarity with Web-based self-help for health purposes or "e-awareness" and intentions to use e-mental health services were weak or inconsistent.ConclusionsConsidering the marginal amount and heterogeneity of pilot studies focusing on public acceptability of e-mental health treatments, further research using theory-led approaches and validated measures is required to understand psychological facilitator and barriers for the implementation of innovative services into health care.
| S-EPMC5394261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of digital psychological interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the available evidence for digital psychological interventions in reducing mental health problems in LMICs.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published in English from database inception to March 9, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials investigating digital psychological interventions in individuals with mental health problems in LMICs. We extracted data on demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, details of the intervention, including the setting, digital delivery method, control group conditions, number of sessions, therapeutic orientation (eg, cognitive therapy or behaviour therapy), presence or absence of guidance, and length of follow-up, and statistical information to calculate effect sizes. If a study reported insufficient data to calculate effect sizes, the corresponding authors were contacted to provide data that could be aggregated. We did random-effects meta-analyses, and calculated the standardised mean difference in scores of digital psychological interventions versus control conditions (Hedges'g). Quality of evidence was assessed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was post-intervention mental health problems, as measured by self-reporting instruments or clinical interviews. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019137755.FindingsWe identified 22 eligible studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies involved a total of 4104 participants (2351 who received a digital psychological intervention and 1753 who were in the control group), and mainly focused on young adults (mean age of the study population was 20-35 years) with depression or substance misuse. The results showed that digital psychological interventions are moderately effective when compared with control interventions (Hedges'g 0·60 [95% CI 0·45-0·75]; Hedges'g with treatment as usual subgroup for comparison 0·54 [0·35-0·73]). Heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=74% [95% CI 60-83]). There was no evidence of publication bias, and the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria was generally high.InterpretationDigital psychological interventions, which have been mostly studied in individuals with depression and substance misuse, are superior to control conditions, including usual care, and are moderately effective in LMICs. However, the considerable heterogeneity observed in our analysis highlights the need for more studies to be done, with standardised implementation of digital psychological intervention programmes to improve their reproducibility and efficiency. Digital psychological interventions should be considered for regions where usual care for mental health problems is minimal or absent.FundingNone.TranslationsFor the Persian, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Bahasa, Turkish, Romanian, Spanish and Thai translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
| S-EPMC7455253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMuch is known about factors associated with coping with abstinence from substance use. The planned systematic review aims to summarise available studies exploring the change in psychosocial factors associated with coping after long-term (≥3 months) inpatient treatment for substance use disorder (SUD). Examples of psychosocial factors of interest are social support, housing, activity (eg, employment and education) mental health and quality of life. Coping behaviour can be understood as responses or actions taken in a stressful situation, particularly how psychosocial factors affect a person's coping behaviour with abstinence from substances in everyday life (characterised as a stressful situation).Methods and analysisA set of text words were developed based on the population (people with SUD), exposure (long-term inpatient SUD treatment), outcome (psychosocial factors) and study design (prospective cohort studies) of interest. A systematic search will be conducted in eight electronic databases: Campbell Collaboration Library, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Medline, PsychINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index and SocINDEX. The titles and abstracts will be screened for relevance before a pre-piloted data collection form will be used to evaluate eligibility and extract data from the search results. The planned review will include peer-reviewed study reports published in English or Scandinavian language.Ethics and disseminationThe target group, people with SUD, might be considered as vulnerable. Based on this, the population will be the group of interest in the planned systematic review of studies that have already been conducted. Patients and the general public will not be involved in the development of this systematic review. The results will be summarised in a study report and submitted to a peer-reviewed international journal. Additionally, results will be disseminated in the mass media and at international research conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42018087408.
| S-EPMC6347889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUntreated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) results in considerable morbidity and higher risk of mortality. However, little is being done to treat PTSD in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) settings where rates of PTSD are likely to be elevated due to mass exposure of the population to traumatic events. This systematic review aims to summarise available evidence on the efficacy of psychological therapies for PTSD in SSA.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the literature will be conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, PsychInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials using keywords and synonyms related to 'PTSD', 'psychological therapies' and 'SSA'. Studies will be included if they were conducted in SSA and used a randomised controlled trial design. Two researchers will screen the studies for eligibility to be included, and data on intervention types, population, comorbidities, comparison group intervention and PTSD outcomes will be extracted from those included. Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (version 2). Narrative synthesis of data will be conducted and pooled effect estimates calculated.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol of a systematic review of available data. Findings will be disseminated to the scientific community through peer-reviewed publications and presentation at conferences.Prospero registrationCRD42020181638.
| S-EPMC8867375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is great interest in the possibility that 'stage of illness' moderates treatment outcomes in bipolar disorder (BD). Much remains unknown about the construct of stage of illness, but there is evidence that effectiveness of psychosocial interventions may depend on factors that are plausible proxy measures of stage of illness (e.g., number of episodes). To date, reviews of this data have focused solely on clinical outcomes (particularly symptoms and relapse rates), but a range of recovery-focused outcomes (including functioning, cognitive functioning, and quality of life) have been measured in individuals with established BD. The aim of the proposed systematic review is to synthesise existing evidence for plausible proxy measures of stage of illness as moderators of recovery-focused and functional outcomes in psychosocial treatment studies of BD.MethodsThe proposed review will follow PRISMA guidelines; Scopus, PsychINFO, PubMed and Web of Science will be searched for empirical studies of psychosocial interventions used for established (clinical stages 2-4) BD; and findings will be summarised in a narrative synthesis of clinical stage of illness (operationalised in proxy measures identified in existing staging models) as a moderator of recovery-focused and functional outcomes of psychosocial interventions for established bipolar disorder.DiscussionThis review will contribute to the literature by expanding upon previous reviews and potentially inform the psychosocial treatment of established BD. Implications include assisting clinicians, consumers and researchers to identify and select interventions most appropriate to recovery-focused goals based on individuals' clinical status.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016037868.
| S-EPMC6535183 | biostudies-literature