4.6 Review

Cognitive behavioural therapy for depression in women with PCOS: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 599-607

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.05.0011472-6483

关键词

Cognitive behavioural therapy; Depression; Intervention; Polycystic ovary syndrome; PCOS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to examine the effects of different types of CBT interventions on depression scores in women with PCOS. The findings showed that most psychological interventions applying CBT were effective in lowering depression scores in women with PCOS. However, caution should be taken when interpreting the results due to methodological differences and the quality of the included studies.
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder with physical and psychological complaints, especially high depression scores. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first-line psychological treatment for depression. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of different types of CBT interventions and the effects on depression scores in women with PCOS. A literature search was performed in six databases up to July 2020. Studies published in English, in which depression scores were compared between groups during a CBT intervention in women with PCOS, were included. A total of 4854 studies were identified, of which eight studies were included in the systematic review and five in the meta-analysis. CBT ranged from 8 to 52 weeks and involved between 8 and 20 sessions. An overall Cohen's d effect size of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.02-2.02) was found in favour of CBT compared with standard care. To conclude, most psychological interventions applying CBT are effective in lowering depression scores in women with PCOS. These results should be interpreted with caution due to methodological differences and quality of the studies. More clinical trials are needed to assess how many sessions of CBT are necessary to treat depression in women with PCOS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据