Background Ambulatory assessments offer opportunities to study physical activity level (PAL) and affect at the group and person-level. We examined bidirectional associations between PAL and affect... Show moreBackground Ambulatory assessments offer opportunities to study physical activity level (PAL) and affect at the group and person-level. We examined bidirectional associations between PAL and affect in a 3-h timeframe and evaluated whether associations differ between people with and without current or remitted depression/anxiety. Methods Two-week ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and actigraphy data of 359 participants with current (n = 93), remitted (n = 176), or no (n = 90) Composite International Diagnostic Interview depression/anxiety diagnoses were obtained from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. Positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were assessed by EMA 5 times per day. Average PAL between EMA assessments were calculated from actigraphy data. Results At the group-level, higher PAL was associated with subsequent higher PA (b = 0.109, p < .001) and lower NA (b = -0.043, p < .001), while higher PA (b = 0.066, p < .001) and lower NA (b = -0.053, p < .001) were associated with subsequent higher PAL. The association between higher PAL and subsequent lower NA was stronger for current depression/anxiety patients than controls (p = .01). At the person-level, analyses revealed heterogeneity in bidirectional associations. Conclusions Higher PAL may improve affect, especially among depression/anxiety patients. As the relationships vary at the person-level, ambulatory assessments may help identify who would benefit from behavioral interventions. Show less
Ottenheim, N.R.; Pan, K.Y.; Kok, A.A.L.; Jorg, F.; Eikelenboom, M.; Horsfall, M.; ... ; Giltay, E.J. 2022
Background Mental health was only modestly affected in adults during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic on the group level, but interpersonal variation was large. Aims We aim to investigate... Show moreBackground Mental health was only modestly affected in adults during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic on the group level, but interpersonal variation was large. Aims We aim to investigate potential predictors of the differences in changes in mental health. Method Data were aggregated from three Dutch ongoing prospective cohorts with similar methodology for data collection. We included participants with pre-pandemic data gathered during 2006-2016, and who completed online questionnaires at least once during lockdown in The Netherlands between 1 April and 15 May 2020. Sociodemographic, clinical (number of mental health disorders and personality factors) and COVID-19-related variables were analysed as predictors of relative changes in four mental health outcomes (depressive symptoms, anxiety and worry symptoms, and loneliness), using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results We included 1517 participants with (n = 1181) and without (n = 336) mental health disorders. Mean age was 56.1 years (s.d. 13.2), and 64.3% were women. Higher neuroticism predicted increases in all four mental health outcomes, especially for worry (beta = 0.172, P = 0.003). Living alone and female gender predicted increases in depressive symptoms and loneliness (beta = 0.05-0.08), whereas quarantine and strict adherence with COVID-19 restrictions predicted increases in anxiety and worry symptoms (beta = 0.07-0.11).Teleworking predicted a decrease in anxiety symptoms (beta = -0.07) and higher age predicted a decrease in anxiety (beta = -0.08) and worry symptoms (beta = -0.10). Conclusions Our study showed neuroticism as a robust predictor of adverse changes in mental health, and identified additional sociodemographic and COVID-19-related predictors that explain longitudinal variability in mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Show less
BackgroundObservational studies suggest that hormonal contraceptive use may increase depressive symptoms in women, but it is unclear whether the effect is causal.AimsTo quantitatively examine the... Show moreBackgroundObservational studies suggest that hormonal contraceptive use may increase depressive symptoms in women, but it is unclear whether the effect is causal.AimsTo quantitatively examine the evidence from randomised clinical trials for the link between hormonal contraceptive use and depressive symptoms.MethodWe performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing women randomised to any form of a hormonal contraceptive with women randomised to any other form of a (non-)hormonal contraceptive or placebo. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMCare and EMBASE, from inception to 1 May 2020. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A random-effect Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, with change in depressive symptoms between baseline and three cycles as outcome.ResultsThis review identified 3492 records, of which 14 trials were eligible and 12 could be included in the network meta-analysis. These trials included 5833 participants (mean age per study range: 16.8-32.4 years) and compared 10 different interventions. Compared with placebo, hormonal contraceptive use did not cause worsening of depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference: median, -0.04; range, -0.17 [95% credible interval -0.46 to 0.13] to 0.13 [95% credible interval -0.28 to 0.56]).ConclusionsThis study suggests that hormonal contraceptive use does not lead to an increase in depressive symptoms in adult women. Future studies should include first-time users, to confirm the results in young women. Show less
Introduction: The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA, www.nesda.nl) is a longitudinal, multisite, naturalistic, case-control cohort study set up to examine the etiology, course and... Show moreIntroduction: The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA, www.nesda.nl) is a longitudinal, multisite, naturalistic, case-control cohort study set up to examine the etiology, course and consequences of depressive and anxiety disorders. This paper presents a cohort profile of NESDA.Methods and Results: The NESDA sample recruited initially 2329 persons with a remitted or current DSM-IV based depressive (major depressive disorder, dysthymia) and/or anxiety disorder (panic disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder), 367 of their siblings and 652 healthy controls, yielding a total of 3348 participants. Half-day face-to-face assessments of participants started in 2004 and since then have been repeated six times over a period of 9 years. A 13-year follow-up assessment is ongoing, at what time we also recruit offspring of participants. Retention rates are generally high, ranging from 87.1% (after 2 years) to 69.4% (after 9 years). Psychiatric diagnostic interviews have been administered at all face-to-face assessments, as was monitoring of clinical characteristics, psychosocial functioning and somatic health. Assessed etiological factors include e.g. early and current environmental risk factors, psychological vulnerability and resilience factors as well as (neuro)biology through hypothesis-driven biomarker assessments, genome-wide and large-scale ?-omics? assessments, and neuroimaging assessments.Limitations: The naturalistic design allows research into course and consequences of affective disorders but is limited in treatment response interpretation.Conclusions: NESDA provides a strong research infrastructure for research into depressive and/or anxiety disorders. Its data have been used for many scientific papers describing either NESDA-based analyses or joint collaborative consortia-projects, and are in principle available to researchers outside the NESDA consortium. Show less
Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, S.; Carlier, I.; Hemert, I. van; Hemert, A. van; Stiggelbout, A.; Zitman, F. 2019
Rationale, aims, and objectives People worldwide are affected by psychiatric disorders that lack a "best" treatment option. The role of shared decision-making (SDM) in psychiatric care seems... Show moreRationale, aims, and objectives People worldwide are affected by psychiatric disorders that lack a "best" treatment option. The role of shared decision-making (SDM) in psychiatric care seems evident, yet remains limited. Research on SDM in specialized mental health is scarce, concentrating on patients with depressive disorder or psychiatric disorders in general and less on patients with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Furthermore, recent research concentrates on the evaluation of interventions to promote and measure SDM rather than on the feasibility of SDM in routine practice. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' perspectives on SDM to treat depression, anxiety disorders, and OCD as to better understand SDM in specialized psychiatric care and its challenges in clinical practice. Methods Transcripts of eight focus groups with 17 outpatients and 33 clinicians were coded, and SDM-related codes were analysed using thematic analyses. Results Motivators, responsibilities, and preconditions regarding SDM were defined. Patients thought SDM should be common practice given the autonomy they have over their own bodies and felt responsible for their treatments. Clinicians value SDM for obtaining patients' consent, promoting treatment adherence, and establishing a good patient-clinician relationship. Patients and clinicians thought clinicians assumed the most responsibility regarding the initiation and achievement of SDM in clinical practice. According to clinicians, preconditions were often not met, were influenced by illness severity, and formed important barriers (eg, patient's decision-making capacity, treatment availability, and clinicians' preferences), leading to paternalistic decision-making. Patients recognized these difficulties, but felt none of these preclude the implementation of SDM. Personalized information and more consultation time could facilitate SDM. Conclusions Patients and clinicians in specialized psychiatric care value SDM, but adapting it to daily practice remains challenging. Clinicians are vital to the implementation of SDM and should become versed in how to involve patients in the decision-making process, even when this is difficult. Show less
