Search

Binge-eating disorder (BED) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of eating a large amount of food in a discrete period of time while experiencing a loss of control. Cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced (CBT-E) is a recommended treatment for binge-eating disorder and is typically offered through 20 sessions. Although binge-eating disorder is highly responsive to CBT-E, the cost of treating these patients is high. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the efficacy of low-intensity and low-cost treatments for binge-eating disorder that can be offered as a first line of treatment and be widely disseminated. The proposed noninferiority randomized controlled trial aims to determine the efficacy of web-based guided self-help CBT-E compared to treatment-as-usual CBT-E. Guided self-help will be based on a self-help program to stop binge eating, will be shorter in duration and lower intensity, and will require fewer therapist hours. Patients with binge-eating disorder (N = 180) will be randomly assigned to receive guided self-help or treatment-as-usual. Assessments will take place at baseline, mid-treatment, at the end of treatment, and at 20- and 40-weeks post-treatment. Treatment efficacy will be measured by examining the reduction in binge-eating days in the previous 28 days between baseline and the end of treatment between groups, with a noninferiority margin (Δ) of 1 binge-eating day. Secondary outcomes will include full remission, body shape dissatisfaction, therapeutic alliance, clinical impairment, health-related quality of life, attrition, and an economic evaluation to assess cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The moderators examined will be baseline scores, demographic variables, and body mass index. It is expected that guided self-help is noninferior in efficacy compared to treatment-as-usual. The proposed study will be the first to directly compare the efficacy and economically evaluate a low-intensity and low-cost binge-eating disorder treatment compared to treatment-as-usual. If guided self-help is noninferior to treatment-as-usual in efficacy, it can be widely disseminated and used as a first line of treatment for patients with binge-eating disorder. The Dutch trial register number is R21.016. The study has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committees United on May 25th, 2021, case number NL76368.100.21.

BackgroundThere is a considerable gap between care provision and the demand for care for common mental disorders in low-and-middle-income countries. Screening for these disorders, e.g., in primary care, will help to close this gap. However, appropriate norms and threshold values for screeners of common mental disorders are lacking.MethodsIn a survey study, we gathered data on frequently used screeners for alcohol use disorders, (AUDIT), depression, (CES-D), and anxiety disorders (GAD-7, ACQ, and BSQ) in a representative sample from Suriname, a non-Latin American Caribbean country. A stratified sampling method was used by random selection of 2,863 respondents from 5 rural and 12 urban resorts. We established descriptive statistics of all scale scores and investigated unidimensionality. Furthermore, we compared scores by gender, age-group, and education level with t-test and Mann–Whitney U tests, using a significance level of p

Background: This study explored how the COVID-19 outbreak and arrangements such as remote working and furlough affect work or study stress levels and functioning in staff and students at the University of York, UK.Methods: An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to all University of York staff and students in May-June 2020. We measured stress levels [VAS-scale, Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ)], mental health [anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9)], physical health (PHQ-15, chronic medical conditions checklist), presenteeism, and absenteeism levels (iPCQ). We explored demographic and other characteristics as factors which may contribute to resilience and vulnerability for the impact of COVID-19 on stress.Results: One thousand and fifty five staff and nine hundred and twenty five students completed the survey. Ninety-eight per cent of staff and seventy-eight per cent of students worked or studied remotely. 7% of staff and 10% of students reported sickness absence. 26% of staff and 40% of the students experienced presenteeism. 22–24% of staff reported clinical-level anxiety and depression scores, and 37.2 and 46.5% of students. Staff experienced high stress levels due to COVID-19 (66.2%, labeled vulnerable) and 33.8% experienced low stress levels (labeled resilient). Students were 71.7% resilient vs. 28.3% non-resilient. Predictors of vulnerability in staff were having children [OR = 2.23; CI (95) = 1.63–3.04] and social isolation [OR = 1.97; CI (95) = 1.39–2.79] and in students, being female [OR = 1.62; CI (95) = 1.14–2.28], having children [OR = 2.04; CI (95) = 1.11–3.72], and social isolation [OR = 1.78; CI (95) = 1.25–2.52]. Resilience was predicted by exercise in staff [OR = 0.83; CI (95) = 0.73–0.94] and in students [OR = 0.85; CI (95) = 0.75–0.97].Discussion: University staff and students reported high psychological distress, presenteeism and absenteeism. However, 33.8% of staff and 71.7% of the students were resilient. Amongst others, female gender, having children, and having to self-isolate contributed to vulnerability. Exercise contributed to resilience.Conclusion: Resilience occurred much more often in students than in staff, although psychological distress was much higher in students. This suggests that predictors of resilience may differ from psychological distress per se. Hence, interventions to improve resilience should not only address psychological distress but may also address other factors.