https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(08)61706-7.pdf

Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries

OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials. METHODS: Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period. RESULTS: In the systematic reviews, eight studies compared results of randomised and non-randomised studies across multiple interventions using meta-epidemiological techniques. A total of 194 tools were identified that could be or had been used to assess non-randomised studies. Sixty tools covered at least five of six pre-specified internal validity domains. Fourteen tools covered three of four core items of particular importance for non-randomised studies. Six tools were thought suitable for use in systematic reviews. Of 511 systematic reviews that included non-randomised studies, only 169 (33%) assessed study quality. Sixty-nine reviews investigated the impact of quality on study results in a quantitative manner. The new empirical studies estimated the bias associated with non-random allocation and found that the bias could lead to consistent over- or underestimations of treatment effects, also the bias increased variation in results for both historical and concurrent controls, owing to haphazard differences in case-mix between groups. The biases were large enough to lead studies falsely to conclude significant findings of benefit or harm. Four strategies for case-mix adjustment were evaluated: none adequately adjusted for bias in historically and concurrently controlled studies. Logistic regression on average increased bias. Propensity score methods performed better, but were not satisfactory in most situations. Detailed investigation revealed that adequate adjustment can only be achieved in the unrealistic situation when selection depends on a single factor. CONCLUSIONS: Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.

/pdf/evaluating-non-randomised-intervention-studies-2k25cz7x6r.pdf

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

Background: Child sexual abuse is considered a modifiable risk factor for mental disorders across the life course. However the long-term consequences of other forms of child maltreatment have not yet been systematically examined. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence relating to the possible relationship between child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect, and subsequent mental and physical health outcomes. Methods and Findings: A systematic review was conducted using the Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO electronic databases up to 26 June 2012. Published cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies that examined non-sexual child maltreatment as a risk factor for loss of health were included. All meta-analyses were based on quality-effects models. Out of 285 articles assessed for eligibility, 124 studies satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Statistically significant associations were observed between physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect and depressive disorders (physical abuse [odds ratio (OR)=1.54; 95% CI 1.16–2.04], emotional abuse [OR=3.06; 95% CI 2.43–3.85], and neglect [OR=2.11; 95% CI 1.61–2.77]); drug use (physical abuse [OR=1.92; 95% CI 1.67–2.20], emotional abuse [OR=1.41; 95% CI 1.11–1.79], and neglect [OR=1.36; 95% CI 1.21–1.54]); suicide attempts (physical abuse [OR=3.40; 95% CI 2.17–5.32], emotional abuse [OR=3.37; 95% CI 2.44–4.67], and neglect [OR=1.95; 95% CI 1.13–3.37]); and sexually transmitted infections and risky sexual behaviour (physical abuse [OR=1.78; 95% CI 1.50–2.10], emotional abuse [OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.49– 2.04], and neglect [OR=1.57; 95% CI 1.39–1.78]). Evidence for causality was assessed using Bradford Hill criteria. While suggestive evidence exists for a relationship between maltreatment and chronic diseases and lifestyle risk factors, more research is required to confirm these relationships. Conclusions: This overview of the evidence suggests a causal relationship between non-sexual child maltreatment and a range of mental disorders, drug use, suicide attempts, sexually transmitted infections, and risky sexual behaviour. All forms of child maltreatment should be considered important risks to health with a sizeable impact on major contributors to the burden of disease in all parts of the world. The awareness of the serious long-term consequences of child maltreatment should encourage better identification of those at risk and the development of effective interventions to protect children from violence. Please see later in the article for the Editors’ Summary.

/pdf/the-long-term-health-consequences-of-child-physical-abuse-3zj6kg9vzm.pdf

The Long-Term Health Consequences of Child Physical Abuse, Emotional Abuse, and Neglect: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cultivation of mindfulness, the nonjudgmental awareness of experiences in the present moment, produces beneficial effects on well-being and ameliorates psychiatric and stress-related symptoms. Mindfulness meditation has therefore increasingly been incorporated into psychotherapeutic interventions. Although the number of publications in the field has sharply increased over the last two decades, there is a paucity of theoretical reviews that integrate the existing literature into a comprehensive theoretical framework. In this article, we explore several components through which mindfulness meditation exerts its effects: (a) attention regulation, (b) body awareness, (c) emotion regulation (including reappraisal and exposure, extinction, and reconsolidation), and (d) change in perspective on the self. Recent empirical research, including practitioners’ self-reports and experimental data, provides evidence supporting these mechanisms. Functional and structural neuroimaging studies have begun to explore the neuroscientific processes underlying these components. Evidence suggests that mindfulness practice is associated with neuroplastic changes in the anterior cingulate cortex, insula, temporo-parietal junction, fronto-limbic network, and default mode network structures. The authors suggest that the mechanisms described here work synergistically, establishing a process of enhanced self-regulation. Differentiating between these components seems useful to guide future basic research and to specifically target areas of development in the treatment of psychological disorders.

How Does Mindfulness Meditation Work? Proposing Mechanisms of Action From a Conceptual and Neural Perspective

Effects of Mindfulness on Psychological Health: A Review of Empirical Studies

Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Concomitance between childhood sexual and physical abuse and substance use problems: A review

Despite the availability of various substance abuse treatments, alcohol and drug misuse and related negative consequences remain prevalent. Vipassana meditation (VM), a Buddhist mindfulness-based practice, provides an alternative for individuals who do not wish to attend or have not succeeded with traditional addiction treatments. In this study, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of a VM course on substance use and psychosocial outcomes in an incarcerated population. Results indicate that after release from jail, participants in the VM course, as compared with those in a treatment-as-usual control condition, showed significant reductions in alcohol, marijuana, and crack cocaine use. VM participants showed decreases in alcohol-related problems and psychiatric symptoms as well as increases in positive psychosocial outcomes. The utility of mindfulness-based treatments for substance use is discussed.

Mindfulness meditation and substance use in an incarcerated population

Objective Many patients drop out of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); some clinicians believe that trauma-focused treatments increase dropout Method We conducted a meta-analysis of dropout among active treatments in clinical trials for PTSD (42 studies; 17 direct comparisons) Results The average dropout rate was 18%, but it varied significantly across studies Group modality and greater number of sessions, but not trauma focus, predicted increased dropout When the meta-analysis was restricted to direct comparisons of active treatments, there were no differences in dropout Differences in trauma focus between treatments in the same study did not predict dropout However, trauma-focused treatments resulted in higher dropout compared with present-centered therapy (PCT), a treatment originally designed as a control but now listed as a research-supported intervention for PTSD Conclusion Dropout varies between active interventions for PTSD across studies, but variability is primarily driven by differences between studies There do not appear to be systematic differences across active interventions when they are directly compared in the same study The degree of clinical attention placed on the traumatic event does not appear to be a primary cause of dropout from active treatments However, comparisons of PCT may be an exception to this general pattern, perhaps because of a restriction of variability in trauma focus among comparisons of active treatments More research is needed comparing trauma-focused interventions to trauma-avoidant treatments such as PCT

/pdf/meta-analysis-of-dropout-in-treatments-for-posttraumatic-2v5otgcso9.pdf

Tracy L. Simpson

Papers

Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Concomitance between childhood sexual and physical abuse and substance use problems: A review

Mindfulness meditation and substance use in an incarcerated population

Meta-analysis of dropout in treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder.

What works? A methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature.