The evidence base for psychological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of reviews

Prothero, Louise, Barley, Elizabeth ORCID:, Galloway, James, Georgopoulou, Sofia and Sturt, Jackie (2018) The evidence base for psychological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 82. pp. 20-29. ISSN 0020-7489

1-s2.0-S0020748918300592-main.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (769kB) | Preview
Barley The evidence base for psychological interventionsfo rheumatoid arthritis a systematic review of reviews.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (530kB) | Preview


Background: Psychological interventions are an important but often overlooked adjunctive treatment option for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Findings from systematic reviews of psychological interventions for this patient group are conflicting. A systematic review of reviews can explain inconsistencies between studies and provide a clearer understanding of the effects of interventions.
Objectives: To: 1) determine the effectiveness of psychological interventions in improving biopsychosocial outcomes for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, 2) determine the relationship between the intensity of the psychological interventions (number of sessions, duration of sessions, duration of intervention) on outcomes, and 3) assess the impact of comparator group (usual care, education only) on outcomes.
Design: We conducted a systematic review of reviews using the following inclusion criteria: 1) randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions (including cognitive behavioural therapy, supportive counselling, psychotherapy, self-regulatory techniques, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and disclosure therapy) provided as an adjunct to medication, 2) included rheumatoid arthritis patients aged ≥ 18 years, 3) reported findings for at least 1 of the primary outcomes: pain, fatigue, psychological status, functional disability and disease activity and 4) were published in English between January 2000 and March 2015 (updated January 2018).
Data sources: We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Reference lists were searched for additional reviews.
Review methods: Study selection and 50% of the quality assessments were performed by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality was measured using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer using a predesigned data extraction form.
Results: Eight systematic reviews met inclusion criteria (one review was excluded due to its low-quality score). Small post intervention improvements in patient global assessment, functional disability, pain, fatigue, anxiety and depression were observed. The effect on coping, self-efficacy and physical activity was greater. Improvements in depression, coping and physical activity were maintained (8.5-14 months). Interventions delivered over a longer period with a maintenance component appeared more effective. Attention, education, and placebo control groups produced some improvements but not as large as those produced by the psychological interventions.
Conclusions: Psychological interventions result in small to moderate improvements in biopsychosocial outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in addition to those achieved by standard care. Several priorities for future research were identified, including determining the cost effectiveness of non-psychologically trained health professionals delivering psychological interventions.

Item Type: Article
Identifier: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.03.008
Additional Information: Corrigendum to ``The evidence base for psychological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review of reviews'' [International Journal of Nursing Studies Volume 82, June 2018, Pages 20-29]: The authors apologise for some errors in the published article. The corrections are as follows: In Table 4: For the outcome `Depression', effect size 0.12 should read -0.12 Confidence interval 0.04, -0.56 should read 0.04, 0.56 (also reported in the text on page 22) Confidence interval 0.12, -0.42 should read 0.12, 0.42 Confidence interval 0.07, -0.37 should read 0.07, 0.37 Confidence interval -0.17, -0.29 should read -0.17, 0.29 Confidence interval -0.07, -1.11 should read -0.07, 1.11 (also reported in the text on page 26) Reported in the text on page 26 of the article: Confidence interval 0.09, -0.83 should read 0.09, 0.83 The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Subjects: Psychology > Counselling and psychotherapy
Medicine and health > Nursing > Mental health nursing
Medicine and health > Mental health
Medicine and health
Medicine and health > Nursing
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Elizabeth Barley
Date Deposited: 15 Mar 2018 13:00
Last Modified: 28 Aug 2021 07:09


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item