Commonhealth (Philadelphia, Pa.)最新文献

Innovations in public health research and evidence-based interventions targeting chronic and infectious diseases are only effective if they reach their target populations. Individuals from low socioeconomic background, racial and ethnic minorities, and sexual/gender minority communities are most susceptible to chronic diseases such as obesity and cancer, and infectious diseases such as HIV and COVID-19. These disparities are driven by social and structural conditions including stigma and discrimination, housing instability and food insecurity, among others. Accordingly, interventions that aim to improve population health must be targeted toward marginalized communities who are often systematically excluded from decision making processes. This article introduces dissemination and implementation science as a key opportunity to advance health equity through integrating measures and metrics that evaluate if an intervention is successful at improving health outcomes in marginalized populations. Implementation science also provides frameworks to help evaluate the key determinants to implementation success which can inform subsequent health outcomes. Examples of how researchers have engaged with community stakeholders are provided, along with strategies in which dissemination has gone beyond traditional practices. Finally, ways in which universities can build capacity for implementation science as a means to address health disparities are provided with the goal of improving the translation of research to practice.

Objective: An estimated 3.8% of the global population experiences depression, according to the [2019] WHO report. Evidence supports the efficacy of exercise training (EX) for depression; however, its comparative efficacy to conventional, evidence-supported psychotherapies remains understudied. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of exercise training (EX), behavioral activation therapy (BA), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and non-directive supportive therapy (NDST).

Methods: Our search was performed in seven relevant databases (inception to March 10, 2020) and targeted randomized trials comparing psychological interventions head-to-head and/or to a treatment as usual (TAU) or waitlist (WL) control for the treatment of adults (18 years or older) with depression. Included trials assessed depression using a validated psychometric tool.

Results: From 28,716 studies, 133 trials with 14,493 patients (mean age of 45.8 years; 71.9% female) were included. All treatment arms significantly outperformed TAU (standard mean difference [SMD] range, -0.49 to -0.95) and WL (SMD range, -0.80 to -1.26) controls. According to surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities, BA was mostly likely to have the highest efficacy (1.6), followed by CBT (1.9), EX (2.8), and NDST (3.8). Effect size estimates between BA and CBT (SMD = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.50 to 0.31]), BA and EX (-0.22, [-0.68 to 0.24]), and CBT and EX (-0.12, [-0.42 to 0.17]) were very small, suggesting comparable treatment effects of BA, CBT, and EX. With individual comparisons of EX, BA, and CBT to NDST, we found small to moderate effect sizes (0.09 to 0.46), suggesting EX, BA, and CBT may equally outperform NDST.

Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary yet cautionary support for the clinical use of exercise training for adult depression. High study heterogeneity and lack of sound investigations of exercise must be considered. Continued research is needed to position exercise training as an evidence-based therapy.