Mental health problems are associated with lower quality of life, increased unscheduled care, high economic and social cost, and increased mortality. Nature-based interventions (NBIs) that support people to engage with nature in a structured way are asset-based solutions to improve mental health for community based adults. However, it is unclear which NBIs are most effective, or what format and dose is most efficacious. We systematically reviewed the controlled and uncontrolled evidence for outdoor NBIs. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020163103). Studies that included adults (aged ≥18 years) in community-based settings with or without mental and/or physical health problems were eligible for inclusion. Eligible interventions were structured outdoor activities in green and/or blue space for health and wellbeing. We searched ASSIA, CENTRAL, Embase, Greenfile, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science in October 2019; the search was updated in September 2020. We screened 14,321 records and included 50 studies. Sixteen studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 18 were controlled studies; and 16 were uncontrolled before and after studies. Risk of bias for RCTs was low to moderate; and moderate to high for controlled and uncontrolled studies. Random effects meta-analysis of RCTs showed that NBIs were effective for improving depressive mood −0.64 (95% CI: 1.05 to −0.23), reducing anxiety −0.94 (95% CI: 0.94 to −0.01), improving positive affect 0.95 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.31), and reducing negative affect −0.52 (95% CI: 0.77 to −0.26). Results from controlled and uncontrolled studies largely reflected findings from RCTs. There was less evidence that NBIs improved physical health. The most effective interventions were offered for between 8 and 12 weeks, and the optimal dose ranged from 20 to 90 min. NBIs, specifically gardening, green exercise and nature-based therapy, are effective for improving mental health outcomes in adults, including those with pre-existing mental health problems.

Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed to complex traumatic events are at risk of not only posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but also other mental health comorbidities. Whereas evidence-based psychological and pharmacological treatments are effective for single-event PTSD, it is not known if people who have experienced complex traumatic events can benefit and tolerate these commonly available treatments. Furthermore, it is not known which components of psychological interventions are most effective for managing PTSD in this population. We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for managing mental health problems in people exposed to complex traumatic events. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of psychological and pharmacological treatments for PTSD symptoms in people exposed to complex traumatic events, published up to 25 October 2019. We adopted a nondiagnostic approach and included studies of adults who have experienced complex trauma. Complex-trauma subgroups included veterans; childhood sexual abuse; war-affected; refugees; and domestic violence. The primary outcome was reduction in PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality, and positive and negative affect. We included 116 studies, of which 50 were conducted in hospital settings, 24 were delivered in community settings, seven were delivered in military clinics for veterans or active military personnel, five were conducted in refugee camps, four used remote delivery via web-based or telephone platforms, four were conducted in specialist trauma clinics, two were delivered in home settings, and two were delivered in primary care clinics; clinical setting was not reported in 17 studies. Ninety-four RCTs, for a total of 6,158 participants, were included in meta-analyses across the primary and secondary outcomes; 18 RCTs for a total of 933 participants were included in the component network meta-analysis. The mean age of participants in the included RCTs was 42.6 ± 9.3 years, and 42% were male. Nine non-RCTs were included. The mean age of participants in the non-RCTs was 40.6 ± 9.4 years, and 47% were male. The average length of follow-up across all included studies at posttreatment for the primary outcome was 11.5 weeks. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that psychological interventions reduce PTSD symptoms more than inactive control (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = −0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.02 to −0.63) and active control (k-9; n = 662; SMD = −0.35, 95% CI −0.56 to −0.14) at posttreatment and also compared with inactive control at 6-month follow-up (k = 10; n = 738; SMD = −0.45, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.08). Psychological interventions reduced depressive symptoms (k = 31; n = 2,075; SMD = −0.87, 95% CI −1.11 to −0.63; I² = 82.7%, p = 0.000) and anxiety (k = 15; n = 1,395; SMD = −1.03, 95% CI −1.44 to −0.61; p = 0.000) at posttreatment compared with inactive control. Sleep quality was significantly improved at posttreatment by psychological interventions compared with inactive control (k = 3; n = 111; SMD = −1.00, 95% CI −1.49 to −0.51; p = 0.245). There were no significant differences between psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k = 6; n = 401; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.021). Antipsychotic medicine (k = 5; n = 364; SMD = –0.45; –0.85 to –0.05; p = 0.085) and prazosin (k = 3; n = 110; SMD = −0.52; −1.03 to −0.02; p = 0.182) were effective in reducing PTSD symptoms. Phase-based psychological interventions that included skills-based strategies along with trauma-focused strategies were the most promising interventions for emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Compared with pharmacological interventions, we observed that psychological interventions were associated with greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms and improved sleep quality. Sensitivity analysis showed that psychological interventions were acceptable with lower dropout, even in studies rated at low risk of attrition bias. Trauma-focused psychological interventions were superior to non-trauma-focused interventions across trauma subgroups for PTSD symptoms, but effects among veterans and war-affected populations were significantly reduced. The network meta-analysis showed that multicomponent interventions that included cognitive restructuring and imaginal exposure were the most effective for reducing PTSD symptoms (k = 17; n = 1,077; mean difference = −37.95, 95% CI −60.84 to −15.16). Our use of a non-diagnostic inclusion strategy may have overlooked certain complex-trauma populations with severe and enduring mental health comorbidities. Additionally, the relative contribution of skills-based intervention components was not feasibly evaluated in the network meta-analysis. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that trauma-focused psychological interventions are effective for managing mental health problems and comorbidities in people exposed to complex trauma. Multicomponent interventions, which can include phase-based approaches, were the most effective treatment package for managing PTSD in complex trauma. Establishing optimal ways to deliver multicomponent psychological interventions for people exposed to complex traumatic events is a research and clinical priority.

Background: The 11th revision to the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) identified complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) as a new condition. There is a pressing need to identify effective CPTSD interventions.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), where participants were likely to have clinically significant baseline levels of one or more CPTSD symptom clusters (affect dysregulation, negative self-concept and/or disturbed relationships). We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and PILOTS databases (January 2018), and examined study and outcome quality.Results: Fifty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), exposure alone (EA) and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) were superior to usual care for PTSD symptoms, with effects ranging from g = −0.90 (CBT; k = 27, 95% CI −1.11 to −0.68; moderate quality) to g = −1.26 (EMDR; k = 4, 95% CI −2.01 to −0.51; low quality). CBT and EA each had moderate–large or large effects on negative self-concept, but only one trial of EMDR provided useable data. CBT, EA and EMDR each had moderate or moderate–large effects on disturbed relationships. Few RCTs reported affect dysregulation data. The benefits of all interventions were smaller when compared with non-specific interventions (e.g. befriending). Multivariate meta-regression suggested childhood-onset trauma was associated with a poorer outcome.Conclusions: The development of effective interventions for CPTSD can build upon the success of PTSD interventions. Further research should assess the benefits of flexibility in intervention selection, sequencing and delivery, based on clinical need and patient preferences.

Background: most people in contemporary western society die of the chronic diseases of old age. Whilst palliative care is appropriate for elderly patients with chronic, non-malignant disease, few of these patients access such care compared with cancer patients. Objective referral criteria based on accurate estimation of survival may facilitate more timely referral of non-cancer patients most appropriate for specialist palliative care. Objective: to identify tools and predictor variables that might aid clinicians estimate survival and assess palliative status in non-cancer patients aged 65 years and older. Methods: systematic review and quality assessment using criteria modified from the literature. Results: 11 studies that evaluated prognoses in hospitalised and community-based older adults with non-malignant disease were identified. Key generic predictors of survival were increased dependency of activities of daily living, presence of comorbidities, poor nutritional status and weight loss, and abnormal vital signs and laboratory values. Disease-specific predictors of survival were identified for dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and congestive heart failure. No study evaluated the relationship between survival and palliative status. Conclusion: prognostic models that attempt to estimate survival of ≤6 months in non-cancer patients have generally poor discrimination, reflecting the unpredictable nature of most non-malignant disease. However, a number of generic and disease-specific predictor variables were identified that may help clinicians identify older, non-cancer patients with poor prognoses and palliative care needs. Simple, well-validated prognostic models that provide clinicians with objective measures of palliative status in non-cancer patients are needed. Additionally, research that evaluates the effect of general and specialist palliative care on psychosocial outcomes in non-cancer patients and their carers is needed.

Objective To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 36 general practices in the north west of England. Participants 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial. Interventions Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF). Results 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support. Conclusions Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity. Trial registration ISRCTN80309252.