scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers by "Kimberly A Brownley published in 2016"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evidence supports efficacy of exposure therapy including the manualized version Prolonged Exposure (PE); cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive processing therapy (CPT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-mixed therapies ( moderate SOE); eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and narrative exposure therapy (low-moderate SOE).

540 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Binge-eating disorder is associated with poorer psychological and physical well-being, including major depressive and other psychiatric disorders, and the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, but they differ in content and timing.
Abstract: Background The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear. Purpose To summarize evidence about the benefits and harms of psychological and pharmacologic therapies for adults with binge-eating disorder. Data sources English-language publications in EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Academic OneFile, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through 18 November 2015, and in MEDLINE through 12 May 2016. Study selection 9 waitlist-controlled psychological trials and 25 placebo-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacologic (n = 19) or combination (n = 6) treatment. All were randomized trials with low or medium risk of bias. Data extraction 2 reviewers independently extracted trial data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. Data synthesis Therapist-led cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, and second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) decreased binge-eating frequency and increased binge-eating abstinence (relative risk, 4.95 [95% CI, 3.06 to 8.00], 2.61 [CI, 2.04 to 3.33], and 1.67 [CI, 1.24 to 2.26], respectively). Lisdexamfetamine (mean difference [MD], -6.50 [CI, -8.82 to -4.18]) and SGAs (MD, -3.84 [CI, -6.55 to -1.13]) reduced binge-eating-related obsessions and compulsions, and SGAs reduced symptoms of depression (MD, -1.97 [CI, -3.67 to -0.28]). Headache, gastrointestinal upset, sleep disturbance, and sympathetic nervous system arousal occurred more frequently with lisdexamfetamine than placebo (relative risk range, 1.63 to 4.28). Other forms of cognitive behavioral therapy and topiramate also increased abstinence and reduced binge-eating frequency and related psychopathology. Topiramate reduced weight and increased sympathetic nervous system arousal, and lisdexamfetamine reduced weight and appetite. Limitations Most study participants were overweight or obese white women aged 20 to 40 years. Many treatments were examined only in single studies. Outcomes were measured inconsistently across trials and rarely assessed beyond end of treatment. Conclusion Cognitive behavioral therapy, lisdexamfetamine, SGAs, and topiramate reduced binge eating and related psychopathology, and lisdexamfetamine and topiramate reduced weight in adults with binge-eating disorder. Primary funding source Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

191 citations


01 Jul 2016
TL;DR: Comparing the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behaviors in psychiatric patients in acute care settings, including interventions aimed specifically at reducing use of seclusion and restraint, found evidence was limited for benefits and, especially, for harms.
Abstract: Objective To compare the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behaviors in psychiatric patients in acute care settings, including interventions aimed specifically at reducing use of seclusion and restraint. Data sources We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from January 1, 1991, through February 3, 2016. We manually searched reference lists of pertinent reviews, included trials, and background articles to identify relevant citations that our searches might have missed. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomized trials (CRTs), and observational and noncontrolled studies with sample sizes greater than 100. Eligible studies were limited to acute care settings and adult patients with psychiatric disorders or severe psychiatric symptomatology (excluding dementia); they had to report on aggression or seclusion and restraint outcomes. Review method Two investigators independently selected, extracted data from, and rated risk of bias of studies. Risk of bias and strength of evidence (SOE) were assessed only for controlled studies. Twenty-nine primary studies (from 31 articles) met inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were controlled trials that provided eligible data for SOE grades. Only 4 of these trials took place in the United States. We grouped studies as follows: (1) staff training interventions, (2) risk assessment interventions, (3) multimodal interventions, (4) environmental interventions (including group psychotherapeutic options), and (5) medication protocols versus other medication protocols or alternative strategies. We organized results by three key questions; these covered benefits, harms, and potential modifying characteristics of these strategies. Results Evidence was limited for benefits and, especially, for harms; information about modifying characteristics was completely absent. No key questions had data supporting SOE grades better than low, indicating limited confidence that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect for these outcomes. The available evidence comprised primarily pre/post studies whose inherent high risk of bias precludes drawing inferences of causality. Of the 11 trials eligible for SOE assessment, all but 1 had medium (or high) risk of bias. Risk assessment had low SOE for decreasing subsequent aggression and reducing use of seclusion and restraint, but only when applied in a preventive manner (e.g., as unit-wide programs). SOE for all other interventions, whether aimed at preventing aggression or de-escalating aggressive behavior, was insufficient. Conclusions Given the ethical imperative for treating all patients with dignity, the clinical mandate of finding evidence-based solutions to these mental health challenges, and the legal liability associated with failure to assess and manage violence risk across the treatment continuum, the need for evidence to guide decisionmaking for de-escalating aggressive behavior is critical. The available evidence about relevant strategies is very limited. Only risk assessment decreased subsequent aggression or reduced use of seclusion and restraint (low SOE). Evidence for de-escalating aggressive behavior is even more limited. More research is needed to guide clinicians, administrators, and policymakers on how to best prevent and de-escalate aggressive behavior in acute care settings.

13 citations


19 Aug 2016
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behaviors in psychiatric patients in acute care settings, including interventions aimed specifically at reducing use of seclusion and restraint.
Abstract: Objective To compare the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behaviors in psychiatric patients in acute care settings, including interventions aimed specifically at reducing use of seclusion and restraint. Data sources We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from January 1, 1991, through February 3, 2016. We manually searched reference lists of pertinent reviews, included trials, and background articles to identify relevant citations that our searches might have missed. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomized trials (CRTs), and observational and noncontrolled studies with sample sizes greater than 100. Eligible studies were limited to acute care settings and adult patients with psychiatric disorders or severe psychiatric symptomatology (excluding dementia); they had to report on aggression or seclusion and restraint outcomes. Review method Two investigators independently selected, extracted data from, and rated risk of bias of studies. Risk of bias and strength of evidence (SOE) were assessed only for controlled studies. Twenty-nine primary studies (from 31 articles) met inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were controlled trials that provided eligible data for SOE grades. Only 4 of these trials took place in the United States. We grouped studies as follows: (1) staff training interventions, (2) risk assessment interventions, (3) multimodal interventions, (4) environmental interventions (including group psychotherapeutic options), and (5) medication protocols versus other medication protocols or alternative strategies. We organized results by three key questions; these covered benefits, harms, and potential modifying characteristics of these strategies. Results Evidence was limited for benefits and, especially, for harms; information about modifying characteristics was completely absent. No key questions had data supporting SOE grades better than low, indicating limited confidence that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect for these outcomes. The available evidence comprised primarily pre/post studies whose inherent high risk of bias precludes drawing inferences of causality. Of the 11 trials eligible for SOE assessment, all but 1 had medium (or high) risk of bias. Risk assessment had low SOE for decreasing subsequent aggression and reducing use of seclusion and restraint, but only when applied in a preventive manner (e.g., as unit-wide programs). SOE for all other interventions, whether aimed at preventing aggression or de-escalating aggressive behavior, was insufficient. Conclusions Given the ethical imperative for treating all patients with dignity, the clinical mandate of finding evidence-based solutions to these mental health challenges, and the legal liability associated with failure to assess and manage violence risk across the treatment continuum, the need for evidence to guide decisionmaking for de-escalating aggressive behavior is critical. The available evidence about relevant strategies is very limited. Only risk assessment decreased subsequent aggression or reduced use of seclusion and restraint (low SOE). Evidence for de-escalating aggressive behavior is even more limited. More research is needed to guide clinicians, administrators, and policymakers on how to best prevent and de-escalate aggressive behavior in acute care settings.

11 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Results do not suggest an association between PPD and ghrelin after adjusting for creatinine, but future research should continue to explore this possibility extending further across the postpartum period with larger sample sizes.
Abstract: Postpartum depression (PPD) occurs in 10-15 % of women. The appetite hormone ghrelin, which fluctuates during pregnancy, is associated with depression in nonpregnant samples. Here, we examine the association between PPD and active ghrelin from pregnancy to postpartum. We additionally examine whether ghrelin changes from pregnancy to postpartum and differs between breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women. Sixty women who participated in a survey examining PPD and had information in regard to ghrelin concentrations were included in the study. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale was used to assess symptoms of PPD. Raw ghrelin levels and ghrelin levels adjusted for creatinine were included as outcomes. Women screening positive for PPD at 12 weeks postpartum had higher pregnancy ghrelin concentrations. Ghrelin concentrations significantly decreased from pregnancy to 6 weeks postpartum and this change differed based on pregnancy depression status. Finally, ghrelin levels were lower in women who breastfed compared with women who were bottle-feeding. No significant findings remained once ghrelin levels were adjusted for creatinine. Although results do not suggest an association between PPD and ghrelin after adjusting for creatinine, future research should continue to explore this possibility extending further across the postpartum period with larger sample sizes.

5 citations