Clinical guidelines for the use of lifestyle-based mental health care in major depressive disorder: World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) and Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine (ASLM) taskforce
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of these international guidelines were to provide a global audience of clinicians with (a) a series of evidence-based recommendations for the provision of lifestyle-based mental health care in clinical practice for adults with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and (b) a series of implementation considerations that may be applicable across a range of settings. METHODS: Recommendations and associated evidence-based gradings were based on a series of systematic literature searches of published research as well as the clinical expertise of taskforce members. The focus of the guidelines was eight lifestyle domains: physical activity and exercise, smoking cessation, work-directed interventions, mindfulness-based and stress management therapies, diet, sleep, loneliness and social support, and green space interaction. The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched for articles published prior to June 2020: PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register), CINAHL, PsycINFO. Evidence grading was based on the level of evidence specific to MDD and risk of bias, in accordance with the World Federation of Societies for Biological Psychiatry criteria. RESULTS: Nine recommendations were formed. The recommendations with the highest ratings to improve MDD were the use of physical activity and exercise, relaxation techniques, work-directed interventions, sleep, and mindfulness-based therapies (Grade 2). Interventions related to diet and green space were recommended, but with a lower strength of evidence (Grade 3). Recommendations regarding smoking cessation and loneliness and social support were based on expert opinion. Key implementation considerations included the need for input from allied health professionals and support networks to implement this type of approach, the importance of partnering such recommendations with behaviour change support, and the need to deliver interventions using a biopsychosocial-cultural framework. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle-based interventions are recommended as a foundational component of mental health care in clinical practice for adults with Major Depressive Disorder, where other evidence-based therapies can be added or used in combination. The findings and recommendations of these guidelines support the need for further research to address existing gaps in efficacy and implementation research, especially for emerging lifestyle-based approaches (e.g. green space, loneliness and social support interventions) where data are limited. Further work is also needed to develop innovative approaches for delivery and models of care, and to support the training of health professionals regarding lifestyle-based mental health care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,070 | 0,135 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,011 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».