Cargando…

Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of trea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parker, Erin L., Banfield, Michelle, Fassnacht, Daniel B., Hatfield, Timothy, Kyrios, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8126070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33992082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01445-5
_version_ 1783693689853313024
author Parker, Erin L.
Banfield, Michelle
Fassnacht, Daniel B.
Hatfield, Timothy
Kyrios, Michael
author_facet Parker, Erin L.
Banfield, Michelle
Fassnacht, Daniel B.
Hatfield, Timothy
Kyrios, Michael
author_sort Parker, Erin L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment. METHOD: PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 – 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I(2) = 81.25). Specialist treatment produced large effects compared to both waitlist control (g = 1.46, 95%CI = 0.96 – 1.96) and care as usual (g = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.27 – 1.25). Treatment provided by non-specialists was only superior to waitlist control (g = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.31 – 1.28). We identified relatively few studies (n = 4) of medications, which reported small to moderate effects for SSRI/SNRI medications and hydroxyzine. The quality of included studies was variable and most studies had at least “unclear” risk of bias in one or more key domains. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01445-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8126070
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81260702021-05-17 Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare Parker, Erin L. Banfield, Michelle Fassnacht, Daniel B. Hatfield, Timothy Kyrios, Michael BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment. METHOD: PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 – 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I(2) = 81.25). Specialist treatment produced large effects compared to both waitlist control (g = 1.46, 95%CI = 0.96 – 1.96) and care as usual (g = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.27 – 1.25). Treatment provided by non-specialists was only superior to waitlist control (g = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.31 – 1.28). We identified relatively few studies (n = 4) of medications, which reported small to moderate effects for SSRI/SNRI medications and hydroxyzine. The quality of included studies was variable and most studies had at least “unclear” risk of bias in one or more key domains. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01445-5. BioMed Central 2021-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8126070/ /pubmed/33992082 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01445-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Parker, Erin L.
Banfield, Michelle
Fassnacht, Daniel B.
Hatfield, Timothy
Kyrios, Michael
Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
title Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
title_full Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
title_fullStr Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
title_full_unstemmed Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
title_short Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
title_sort contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8126070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33992082
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01445-5
work_keys_str_mv AT parkererinl contemporarytreatmentofanxietyinprimarycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofoutcomesincountrieswithuniversalhealthcare
AT banfieldmichelle contemporarytreatmentofanxietyinprimarycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofoutcomesincountrieswithuniversalhealthcare
AT fassnachtdanielb contemporarytreatmentofanxietyinprimarycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofoutcomesincountrieswithuniversalhealthcare
AT hatfieldtimothy contemporarytreatmentofanxietyinprimarycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofoutcomesincountrieswithuniversalhealthcare
AT kyriosmichael contemporarytreatmentofanxietyinprimarycareasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofoutcomesincountrieswithuniversalhealthcare