Background: The screening process for systematic reviews is resource-intensive. Although previous machine learning solutions have reported reductions in workload, they risked excluding relevant papers. Objective: We evaluated the performance of a 3-layer screening method using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to streamline the title and abstract-screening process for systematic reviews. Our goal is to develop a screening method that maximizes sensitivity for identifying relevant records. Methods: We conducted screenings on 2 of our previous systematic reviews related to the treatment of bipolar disorder, with 1381 records from the first review and 3146 from the second. Screenings were conducted using GPT-3.5 (gpt-3.5-turbo-0125) and GPT-4 (gpt-4-0125-preview) across three layers: (1) research design, (2) target patients, and (3) interventions and controls. The 3-layer screening was conducted using prompts tailored to each study. During this process, information extraction according to each study’s inclusion criteria and optimization for screening were carried out using a GPT-4–based flow without manual adjustments. Records were evaluated at each layer, and those meeting the inclusion criteria at all layers were subsequently judged as included. Results: On each layer, both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were able to process about 110 records per minute, and the total time required for screening the first and second studies was approximately 1 hour and 2 hours, respectively. In the first study, the sensitivities/specificities of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were 0.900/0.709 and 0.806/0.996, respectively. Both screenings by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 judged all 6 records used for the meta-analysis as included. In the second study, the sensitivities/specificities of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were 0.958/0.116 and 0.875/0.855, respectively. The sensitivities for the relevant records align with those of human evaluators: 0.867-1.000 for the first study and 0.776-0.979 for the second study. Both screenings by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 judged all 9 records used for the meta-analysis as included. After accounting for justifiably excluded records by GPT-4, the sensitivities/specificities of the GPT-4 screening were 0.962/0.996 in the first study and 0.943/0.855 in the second study. Further investigation indicated that the cases incorrectly excluded by GPT-3.5 were due to a lack of domain knowledge, while the cases incorrectly excluded by GPT-4 were due to misinterpretations of the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: Our 3-layer screening method with GPT-4 demonstrated acceptable level of sensitivity and specificity that supports its practical application in systematic review screenings. Future research should aim to generalize this approach and explore its effectiveness in diverse settings, both medical and nonmedical, to fully establish its use and operational feasibility.

Aim: Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness has increasingly attracted attention. However, this concept has not been comprehensively clarified. This review aimed to clarify a concept of shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, and propose an adequate definition.Methods: Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis was used. MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for articles written in English and published between 2010 and November 2019. The search terms were “psychiatr*” or “mental” or “schizophren*” or “depression” or “bipolar disorder”, combined with “shared decision making”. In total, 70 articles met the inclusion criteria. An inductive approach was used to identify themes and sub‐themes related to shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness. Surrogate terms and a definition of the concept were also described.Results: Four key attributes were identified: user–professional relationship, communication process, user‐friendly visualization, and broader stakeholder approach. Communication process was the densest attribute, which consisted of five phases: goal sharing, information sharing, deliberation, mutual agreement, and follow‐up. The antecedents as prominent predisposing factors were long‐term complex illness, power imbalance, global trend, users' desire, concerns, and stigma. The consequences included decision‐related outcomes, users' changes, professionals' changes, and enhanced relationship.Conclusions: Shared decision making for adults with severe mental illness is a communication process, involving both user‐friendly visualization techniques and broader stakeholders. The process may overcome traditional power imbalance and encourage changes among both users and professionals that could enhance the dyadic relationship.

Aim: This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated whether bright light therapy (BLT) is an effective and safe treatment for manic/depressive symptoms and a preventive measure for recurrent mood episodes in patients with bipolar disorder.Methods: A literature search of major electronic databases was conducted in June 2019, including all published articles up to that date. Two researchers independently selected relevant publications, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality according to the Cochrane criteria.Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluated the efficacy of BLT for bipolar depression. A meta‐analysis found no significant differences between BLT and placebo for the following outcomes: (i) rates of remission from depressive episodes (risk ratio [RR]: 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 7.64, P = 0.42); (ii) depressive symptom scores (standardized mean difference: −0.25, 95%CI: −0.74 to 0.23, P = 0.30); and (iii) rates of manic switching (RR: 1.00, 95%CI: 0.28 to 3.59, P = 0.26). The sensitivity analysis for studies with low overall indirectness did show a significant antidepressant effect for BLT (RR: 3.09, 95%CI: 1.62 to 5.90, P = 0.006). No RCT investigated the effect of BLT in preventing the recurrence of mood episodes in the euthymic state or in improving manic symptoms in the manic state. No severe adverse events were reported.Conclusion: While a meta‐analysis was unable to demonstrate the efficacy of BLT for bipolar depression, a sensitivity analysis did show a significant effect. Further well‐designed studies are needed to clarify the effectiveness of BLT, not only for the depressive state but also for other states, in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

Long‐term use of benzodiazepines (BZD) is not recommended for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment option for discontinuation of BZD in patients with anxiety disorders. This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to clarify whether CBT is effective for discontinuing BZD anxiolytics in patients with anxiety disorders. This study was preregistered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019125263). A literature search of major electronic databases was conducted in December 2018. Three randomized controlled trials were included in this review, and meta‐analyses were performed. The proportion of discontinuing BZD anxiolytics was significantly higher in the CBT plus gradual tapering group than in the gradual tapering alone group, both in the short term (3 months after allocation; number needed to treat: 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1 to 7.1; risk ratio: 1.96, 95%CI: 1.29 to 2.98, P = 0.002, three studies) and long term (6 to 12 months after allocation; number needed to treat: 2.8, 95%CI: 1.9 to 5.3; risk ratio: 2.16, 95%CI: 1.41 to 3.32, P = 0.0004, three studies). CBT may be effective for discontinuing BZD anxiolytics, both in the short term and in the long term after the allocation. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of CBT for discontinuing BZD anxiolytics in patients with anxiety disorders.

Background: Although the number of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has increased considerably in recent years, there are few qualitative investigations of the experiences of adults with adult-diagnosed ADHD in Japan. This study aimed to explore in depth the diagnosis-related experiences and needs of such adults. Methods: Participants were 12 psychiatric outpatients aged 23–55 years diagnosed with ADHD during adulthood. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine participants’ experiences of receiving, and subsequently coping with, an ADHD diagnosis. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed. Results: Six themes emerged: difficulties in accepting the diagnosis, interest in ADHD, feelings of relief, identity concerns, dealing with symptoms, and acceptance of ADHD. Despite initial negative reactions, participants were willing to learn about the disorder, spending time seeking ADHD-related information and sharing it with loved ones. Participants felt relieved after the diagnosis, as they realized why they had experienced long-term problems and incorrect labeling. However, participants also had identity concerns. They gradually began to accept their ADHD symptoms and deal with them better. Conclusions: The results suggest that, when treating individuals with adult-diagnosed ADHD, it is important to promote self-understanding and reduce negative attitudes toward ADHD; to provide appropriate, brief, evidence-based information about ADHD; and to give individuals sufficient time to think about their ADHD symptoms, how they have affected their daily lives, and how to cope with them in the future.