Search

Background:\ud \ud To examine the association between self‐reported food insecurity and depression in 34,129 individuals aged ≥50 years from six low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) (China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa).\ud \ud Methods:\ud \ud Cross‐sectional, community‐based, nationally representative data from the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) were analyzed. Self‐reported past 12‐month food insecurity was assessed with two questions on frequency of eating less and hunger due to lack of food. Questions based on the World Mental Health Survey version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview were used for the endorsement of past 12‐month DSM‐IV depression. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and meta‐analysis were conducted to assess associations.\ud \ud Results:\ud \ud In total, 34,129 individuals aged ≥50 years [mean (SD) age, 62.4 (16.0) years; 52.1% females] were included in the analysis. Overall, the prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity was 6.7% and 5.1%, respectively, while the prevalence of depression was 6.0%. Meta‐analyses based on countrywise estimates showed that overall, moderate food insecurity (vs. no food insecurity) is associated with a nonsignificant 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82–3.48) times higher odds for depression, while severe food insecurity is significantly associated with 2.43 (95% CI = 1.65–3.57) times higher odds for depression.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud \ud In this large representative sample of older adults from six LMICs, those with severe food insecurity were over two times more likely to suffer from depression (compared with no food insecurity). Utilizing lay health counselors and psychological interventions may be effective mechanisms to reduce depression among food‐insecure populations. Interventions to address food insecurity (e.g., supplemental nutrition programs) may reduce depression at the population level but future longitudinal studies are warranted.

Purpose:\ud \ud We investigated the association between food insecurity and fall-related injury among older adults from six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the extent to which this association is mediated by mental health.\ud \ud Methods:\ud \ud Cross-sectional, community-based, nationally representative data from the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) were analyzed. Past 12-month food insecurity was assessed with two questions on frequency of eating less and hunger due to lack of food. Fall-related injury referred to those that occurred in the past 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and mediation analysis were conducted to assess associations.\ud \ud Results:\ud \ud Data on 14,585 adults aged ≥65 years [mean (SD) age 72.5 (11.5) years; 54.9% females] were analyzed. After adjustment for potential confounders, severe food insecurity (versus no food insecurity) was associated with 1.95 (95%CI = 1.11–3.41) times higher odds for fall-related injury. Moderate food insecurity was not significantly associated with fall-related injury (OR = 1.34; 95%CI = 0.81–2.25). The mediation analysis showed that 37.3%, 21.8%, 17.7%, and 14.0% of the association between severe food insecurity and fall-related injury was explained by anxiety, sleep problems, depression, and cognition, respectively.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud \ud Severe food insecurity was associated with higher odds for injurious falls among older adults in LMICs, and a large proportion of this association may be explained by mental health complications. Interventions to improve mental health among those who are food insecure and a strong focus on societal and government efforts to reduce food insecurity may contribute to a decrease in injurious falls.

IntroductionThe IMPACT study focuses on chronic low back pain (CLBP) and depression symptoms, a prevalent and complex problem that represents a challenge for health professionals. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Brief Behavioural Activation Treatment for Depression (BATD) are effective treatments for patients with persistent pain and depression, respectively. The objectives of this 12 month, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (RCT) are (i) to examine the efficacy and cost-utility of adding a group-based form of ACT or BATD to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for patients with CLBP and moderate to severe levels of depressive symptoms; (ii) identify pre–post differences in levels of some physiological variables and (iii) analyse the role of polymorphisms in the FKBP5 gene, psychological process measures and physiological variables as mediators or moderators of long-term clinical changes.Methods and analysisParticipants will be 225 patients with CLBP and moderate to severe depression symptoms recruited at Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu (St. Boi de Llobregat, Spain) and Hospital del Mar (Barcelona, Spain), randomly allocated to one of the three study arms: TAU vs TAU+ACT versus TAU+BATD. A comprehensive assessment to collect clinical variables and costs will be conducted pretreatment, post-treatment and at 12 months follow-up, being pain interference the primary outcome measure. The following physiological variables will be considered at pretreatment and post-treatment assessments in 50% of the sample: immune-inflammatory markers, hair cortisol and cortisone, serum cortisol, corticosteroid-binding globulin and vitamin D. Polymorphisms in the FKBP5 gene (rs3800373, rs9296158, rs1360780, rs9470080 and rs4713916) will be analysed at baseline assessment. Moreover, we will include mobile-technology-based ecological momentary assessment, through the Pain Monitor app, to track ongoing clinical status during ACT and BATD treatments. Linear mixed-effects models using restricted maximum likelihood, and a full economic evaluation applying bootstrapping techniques, acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses will be computed.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Fundació Sant Joan de Déu and Hospital del Mar. The results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, social media and various community engagement activities.Trial registration numberNCT04140838

The purpose of the present paper was to evaluate the effects of an 8-week multimodal program focused on core stability exercises and recovery massage with DVD support for a 6-month period in physical and psychological outcomes in breast cancer survivors. A randomized controlled clinical trial was performed. Seventy-eight (n=78) breast cancer survivors were assigned to experimental (core stability exercises plus massage-myofascial release) and control (usual health care) groups. The intervention period was 8 weeks. Mood state, fatigue, trunk curl endurance, and leg strength were determined at baseline, after the last treatment session, and at 6 months of followup. Immediately after treatment and at 6 months, fatigue, mood state, trunk curl endurance, and leg strength exhibited greater improvement within the experimental group compared to placebo group. This paper showed that a multimodal program focused on core stability exercises and massage reduced fatigue, tension, depression, and improved vigor and muscle strength after intervention and 6 months after discharge.

International audience; BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are often considered to be mere placebos despite the fact that meta-analyses are able to rank them. It follows that it should also be possible to rank different placebos, which are all made of sucrose. To explore this issue, which is rather more epistemological than clinical, we designed an unusual meta-analysis to investigate whether the effects of placebo in one situation are different from the effects of placebo in another situation. METHODS: Published and unpublished studies were searched for by three reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, in bibliographies, and by mailing key organizations. The following studies in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder were considered to construct an "evidence network": 1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo on fluoxetine, venlafaxine and 2) fluoxetine versus venlafaxine head-to-head RCTs.Two network meta-analyses were run to indirectly compare response and remission rates among three different placebos: 1) fluoxetine placebo, 2) venlafaxine placebo, and 3) venlafaxine/fluoxetine placebo (that is, placebo compared to both venlafaxine and fluoxetine). Publication biases were assessed using funnel plots and statistically tested. RESULTS: The three placebos were not significantly different in terms of response or remission. The antidepressant agents were significantly more efficacious than the placebos, and venlafaxine was more efficacious than fluoxetine. The funnel plots, however, showed a major publication bias. CONCLUSION: The presence of significant levels of publication bias indicates that we cannot even be certain of the conclusion that sucrose equals sucrose in trials of major depressive disorder. This result should remind clinicians to step back to take a more objective view when interpreting a scientific result. It is of crucial importance for their practice, far more so than ranking antidepressant efficacy.