Institution
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
Healthcare•London, United Kingdom•
About: Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust is a healthcare organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Mental health & Psychological intervention. The organization has 283 authors who have published 459 publications receiving 12648 citations.
Topics: Mental health, Psychological intervention, Dementia, Randomized controlled trial, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University College London1, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust2, King's College London3, University of Melbourne4, University of Exeter5, Brighton and Sussex Medical School6, University of Manchester7, Tel Aviv University8, Johns Hopkins University9, University of Michigan10, University of Washington11, Kaiser Permanente12, University of Montpellier13, University of Edinburgh14, Dalhousie University15, University of Southern California16, University of Oslo17, Innlandet Hospital Trust18
TL;DR: The Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care met to consolidate the huge strides that have been made and the emerging knowledge as to what the authors should do to prevent and manage dementia.
3,826 citations
••
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust1, University College London2, Royal Melbourne Hospital3, University of Exeter4, University of Plymouth5, University of Cambridge6, University of Manchester7, Tel Aviv University8, Goa Medical College9, Johns Hopkins University10, University of California, Davis11, Kaiser Permanente12, University College Hospital, Ibadan13, University of Montpellier14, Dalhousie University15, University of Southern California16, Oslo University Hospital17, University of Washington18
TL;DR: Author(s): Livingston, Gill; Huntley, Jonathan; Sommerlad, Andrew ; Sommer Glad, Andrew; Ames, David; Ballard, Clive; Banerjee, Sube; Brayne, Carol; Burns, Alistair; Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska; Cooper, Claudia; Costafreda, Sergi G; Dias, Amit; Fox, Nick; Gitlin, Laura N; Howard, Robert; Kales, Helen C;
3,559 citations
••
TL;DR: Loneliness and quality of social support in depression are potential targets for development and testing of interventions, while for other conditions further evidence is needed regarding relationships with outcomes.
Abstract: The adverse effects of loneliness and of poor perceived social support on physical health and mortality are established, but no systematic synthesis is available of their relationship with the outcomes of mental health problems over time. In this systematic review, we aim to examine the evidence on whether loneliness and closely related concepts predict poor outcomes among adults with mental health problems. We searched six databases and reference lists for longitudinal quantitative studies that examined the relationship between baseline measures of loneliness and poor perceived social support and outcomes at follow up. Thirty-four eligible papers were retrieved. Due to heterogeneity among included studies in clinical populations, predictor measures and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was conducted. We found substantial evidence from prospective studies that people with depression who perceive their social support as poorer have worse outcomes in terms of symptoms, recovery and social functioning. Loneliness has been investigated much less than perceived social support, but there is some evidence that greater loneliness predicts poorer depression outcome. There is also some preliminary evidence of associations between perceived social support and outcomes in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders. Loneliness and quality of social support in depression are potential targets for development and testing of interventions, while for other conditions further evidence is needed regarding relationships with outcomes.
624 citations
••
University College London1, Alzheimer's Society2, University of Cambridge3, University of Sheffield4, Brighton and Sussex Medical School5, Bangor University6, Technische Universität München7, Imperial College London8, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich9, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust10, University of Hertfordshire11, University of Manchester12, Cardiff University13, University of East Anglia14, University of Bath15, University of Warwick16, University of Hull17, University of Nottingham18, University of Oxford19, Leeds Beckett University20, University of Exeter21, Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases22, St George's, University of London23, University of Bristol24, Queen's University Belfast25, University of Southampton26, Aston University27, Newcastle University28, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust29
TL;DR: This is the first review to identify the 81 outcome measures the research community uses for disease-modifying trials in mild-to-moderate dementia, and recommended core outcomes were cognition as the fundamental deficit in dementia and to indicate disease modification, serial structural MRIs.
Abstract: Background There are no disease-modifying treatments for dementia. There is also no consensus on disease modifying outcomes. We aimed to produce the first evidence-based consensus on core outcome measures for trials of disease modification in mild-to-moderate dementia. Methods and findings We defined disease-modification interventions as those aiming to change the underlying pathology. We systematically searched electronic databases and previous systematic reviews for published and ongoing trials of disease-modifying treatments in mild-to-moderate dementia. We included 149/22,918 of the references found; with 81 outcome measures from 125 trials. Trials involved participants with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) alone (n = 111), or AD and mild cognitive impairment (n = 8) and three vascular dementia. We divided outcomes by the domain measured (cognition, activities of daily living, biological markers, neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, global). We calculated the number of trials and of participants using each outcome. We detailed psychometric properties of each outcome. We sought the views of people living with dementia and family carers in three cities through Alzheimer’s society focus groups. Attendees at a consensus conference (experts in dementia research, disease-modification and harmonisation measures) decided on the core set of outcomes using these results. Recommended core outcomes were cognition as the fundamental deficit in dementia and to indicate disease modification, serial structural MRIs. Cognition should be measured by Mini Mental State Examination or Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale. MRIs would be optional for patients. We also made recommendations for measuring important, but non-core domains which may not change despite disease modification. Limitations Most trials were about AD. Specific instruments may be superseded. We searched one database for psychometric properties. Interpretation This is the first review to identify the 81 outcome measures the research community uses for disease-modifying trials in mild-to-moderate dementia. Our recommendations will facilitate designing, comparing and meta-analysing disease modification trials in mild-to-moderate dementia, increasing their value.
394 citations
••
TL;DR: Brief CBT, counselling and PST are all effective treatments in primary care, but effect sizes are low compared to longer length treatments, including brief CBT for anxiety, which has comparable effect sizes.
Abstract: Psychological therapies provided in primary care are usually briefer than in secondary care. There has been no recent comprehensive review comparing their effectiveness for common mental health problems. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of different types of brief psychological therapy administered within primary care across and between anxiety, depressive and mixed disorders. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials of brief psychological therapies of adult patients with anxiety, depression or mixed common mental health problems treated in primary care compared to primary care treatment as usual. Thirty-four studies, involving 3962 patients, were included. Most were of brief cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT; n = 13), counselling (n = 8) or problem solving therapy (PST; n = 12). There was differential effectiveness between studies of CBT, with studies of CBT for anxiety disorders having a pooled effect size [d -1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.31 to -0.80] greater than that of studies of CBT for depression (d -0.33, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.06) or studies of CBT for mixed anxiety and depression (d -0.26, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.08). Counselling for depression and mixed anxiety and depression (d -0.32, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.11) and problem solving therapy (PST) for depression and mixed anxiety and depression (d -0.21, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05) were also effective. Controlling for diagnosis, meta-regression found no difference between CBT, counselling and PST. Brief CBT, counselling and PST are all effective treatments in primary care, but effect sizes are low compared to longer length treatments. The exception is brief CBT for anxiety, which has comparable effect sizes.
250 citations
Authors
Showing all 290 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Glyn Lewis | 113 | 734 | 49316 |
Susan Michie | 105 | 715 | 77405 |
Michael King | 86 | 471 | 26117 |
Robert Howard | 79 | 405 | 29193 |
Gill Livingston | 79 | 367 | 28655 |
Sonia Johnson | 59 | 338 | 12084 |
David Osborn | 53 | 216 | 9481 |
Claudia Cooper | 50 | 190 | 11775 |
Stephen Pilling | 48 | 166 | 9107 |
Quentin J. M. Huys | 41 | 121 | 6483 |
Paul K. Davis | 39 | 282 | 6400 |
Angela Hassiotis | 38 | 227 | 4637 |
Alan Simpson | 37 | 171 | 3812 |
Matthew Allin | 36 | 71 | 4273 |
Andre Strydom | 36 | 165 | 4532 |