Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness.

Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-analysis

The present meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation in modifying emotional outcomes as indexed by experiential, behavioral, and physiological measures. A systematic search of the literature identified 306 experimental comparisons of different emotion regulation (ER) strategies. ER instructions were coded according to a new taxonomy, and meta-analysis was used to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy across studies. The findings revealed differences in effectiveness between ER processes: Attentional deployment had no effect on emotional outcomes (d+ = 0.00), response modulation had a small effect (d+ = 0.16), and cognitive change had a small-to-medium effect (d+ = 0.36). There were also important within-process differences. We identified 7 types of attentional deployment, 4 types of cognitive change, and 4 types of response modulation, and these distinctions had a substantial influence on effectiveness. Whereas distraction was an effective way to regulate emotions (d+ = 0.27), concentration was not (d+ = −0.26). Similarly, suppressing the expression of emotion proved effective (d+ = 0.32), but suppressing the experience of emotion or suppressing thoughts of the emotion-eliciting event did not (d+ = −0.04 and −0.12, respectively). Finally, reappraising the emotional response proved less effective (d+ = 0.23) than reappraising the emotional stimulus (d+ = 0.36) or using perspective taking (d+ = 0.45). The review also identified several moderators of strategy effectiveness including factors related to the (a) to-be-regulated emotion, (b) frequency of use and intended purpose of the ER strategy, (c) study design, and (d) study characteristics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation.

Meta-analytic procedures for social research

BackgroundThe literature describing the global prevalence of anxiety disorders is highly variable. A systematic review and meta-regression were undertaken to estimate the prevalence of anxiety disorders and to identify factors that may influence these estimates. The findings will inform the new Global Burden of Disease study.MethodA systematic review identified prevalence studies of anxiety disorders published between 1980 and 2009. Electronic databases, reference lists, review articles and monographs were searched and experts then contacted to identify missing studies. Substantive and methodological factors associated with inter-study variability were identified through meta-regression analyses and the global prevalence of anxiety disorders was calculated adjusting for study methodology.ResultsThe prevalence of anxiety disorders was obtained from 87 studies across 44 countries. Estimates of current prevalence ranged between 0.9% and 28.3% and past-year prevalence between 2.4% and 29.8%. Substantive factors including gender, age, culture, conflict and economic status, and urbanicity accounted for the greatest proportion of variability. Methodological factors in the final multivariate model (prevalence period, number of disorders and diagnostic instrument) explained an additional 13% of variance between studies. The global current prevalence of anxiety disorders adjusted for methodological differences was 7.3% (4.8–10.9%) and ranged from 5.3% (3.5–8.1%) in African cultures to 10.4% (7.0–15.5%) in Euro/Anglo cultures.ConclusionsAnxiety disorders are common and the substantive and methodological factors identified here explain much of the variability in prevalence estimates. Specific attention should be paid to cultural differences in responses to survey instruments for anxiety disorders.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S003329171200147X

Global prevalence of anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-regression

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) refers to a popular therapeutic approach that has been applied to a variety of problems. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive survey of meta-analyses examining the efficacy of CBT. We identified 269 meta-analytic studies and reviewed of those a representative sample of 106 meta-analyses examining CBT for the following problems: substance use disorder, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, depression and dysthymia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, insomnia, personality disorders, anger and aggression, criminal behaviors, general stress, distress due to general medical conditions, chronic pain and fatigue, distress related to pregnancy complications and female hormonal conditions. Additional meta-analytic reviews examined the efficacy of CBT for various problems in children and elderly adults. The strongest support exists for CBT of anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, bulimia, anger control problems, and general stress. Eleven studies compared response rates between CBT and other treatments or control conditions. CBT showed higher response rates than the comparison conditions in seven of these reviews and only one review reported that CBT had lower response rates than comparison treatments. In general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong. However, additional research is needed to examine the efficacy of CBT for randomized-controlled studies. Moreover, except for children and elderly populations, no meta-analytic studies of CBT have been reported on specific subgroups, such as ethnic minorities and low income samples.

/pdf/the-efficacy-of-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-a-review-of-txe8rqmfum.pdf

The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses

In this review, we present a transdiagnostic emotion dysregulation model of mood and anxiety disorders. This model posits that a triggering event, in conjunction with an existing diathesis, leads to negative or positive affect, depending on the person's affective style. Mood and anxiety disorders are the result of emotion dysregulation of negative affect, coupled with deficiencies in positive affect. The theoretical background of the model is discussed and a range of clinical applications of the model is described.

Emotion dysregulation model of mood and anxiety disorders.

How to handle anxiety: The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal

The defining feature of social anxiety disorder (SAD) is the fear of negative evaluation by others. Therefore, SAD is directly linked to social standards and role expectations, which are culture dependent. Recognizing the intricate interplay between culture and social anxiety, some research has focused on psychopathologic manifestations of SAD across cultures [1], while in other studies the focus has been on comparing disorder-typical symptoms across cultures [2]. It should be noted that most of the studies on cultural differences in SAD have examined Eastern (especially Japanese, Korean, and Chinese) and Western (US American and European) samples.

The following is a review of the evidence pertaining to the validity of the DSM-IV-TR criteria for social anxiety disorder (SAD) as it relates to culture, race, and ethnicity. We use the term “race” when we refer to broad differentiations based on physiognomy (e.g., White), “ethnicity” when we refer to “common descent” and affiliation with a historically continuous community (e.g., Latino), and “culture” when we refer to social groups with specific or homogenous attributes. We particularly concentrate on culture as a source for the nosological revisions to explore whether certain cognitive/ behavioral elements (e.g., interpretations of illness; patterned reactions to stressors) affect the development or expression of psychiatric syndromes.

The search methods for the current review entailed a thorough computer search using the Pubmed and PsychInfo databases for articles published since the publication of the DSM-IV in 1994. Specifically, key words relevant to SAD (i.e., “social phobia” or “social anxiety disorder”) were combined with the terms “culture”, “ethnic*”, and “race”. This approach yielded 602 articles, which were evaluated for relevance to the present topic. Finally, bibliographies of key articles were inspected, as well as references from 1965–1994 (as appropriate), to augment the final reference list.

In this review, we first discuss cultural differences in rates of SAD, in the form that SAD takes (emphasizing the well-researched case of TKS), and in treatment response. The final section examines key factors that generate SAD and affect its presentation, and discusses how these key mechanism may be influenced by culture. We end with a discussion of the implications of the review.

/pdf/cultural-aspects-in-social-anxiety-and-social-anxiety-1uyj14bsg3.pdf

Anu Asnaani

Papers

The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses

Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness.

Emotion dysregulation model of mood and anxiety disorders.

How to handle anxiety: The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious arousal

Cultural Aspects in Social Anxiety and Social Anxiety Disorder