Background
Method
Search strategy
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria
Screening and assessment
Results
Study characteristics
Study | Intervention | Language | Control | Design | N | Data collection | Primary outcome measure* | Effect on depressive symptoms | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yeung et al. (2010) [64] | Culturally-sensitive, collaborative treatment (8 sessions/24 weeks) | English/Chinese | UCa
| Descriptive uncontrolled design | 100 | 6 months, follow up: 1.5, 3.5 and 6 months | HAM-D CGI-S CGI-I | Decrease in depressive symptoms in Control and Intervention. No significant difference between groups | No |
Choi et al. (2012) [53] | Culturally-adapted, internet CBT (8 weeks) | English/Chinese | WLb
| RCT | 63 | Pre, post and 3 month (intervention only) | CBDI CB-PHQ9 | Large effect size on BDI (d =1.41; d = .93 within and between groups) and medium to large effect size on CB-PHQ-9 (d = .90; d = .50 within and between groups) | Yes |
Cho et al. (2012) [52] | Logo-autobiography (6 sessions/6 weeks) | Korean | UC with and without medicine | Non-randomised experimental research study | 40 | Pre, post and 4 week follow up (intervention only) | CES-D (Korean) | Depression scores significantly decreased in I relative to C at post-test (p = .013) and 4 weeks (p = .001). Effect size .50. No significant difference between Imed and Cmed | Partly |
Tang et al. (2005) [61] | CBT (16 sessions/5 months) | Cantonese | None | Case study | 1 | Not described | GDS | Depression scores on GDS decreased by 8 points by conclusion of study | NA |
Yeung et al. (2012) [63] | Tai Chi (2×1 hr/12 weeks) | Chinese | WL | Pilot RCT | 39 | Baseline, 6 12 weeks | HAM-D CGI-S CGI-I | Non-significant positive trend towards remission of depression | No |
Dwight-Johnson et al. (2011) [54] | Culturally-tailored, telephone based CBT intervention (8 sessions) | Spanish | Enhanced UC | Randomised pilot study | 101 | Baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months | SCL PHQ-9 | Non-significant positive trend towards remission of depression in intervention group | No |
Piedra et al. (2012) [58] | Group CBT “Vida alegra” (10 sessions/10 weeks) | Spanish | None | Pre/post/follow-up study | 19 | Baseline, Post test, 3 months | CES-D | Significant reduction in CES-D, effect size = .67 | Yes |
Interian et al. (2008) [56] | Culturally-adapted, CBT (12 sessions) | Spanish | None | Pre/post/follow-up study | 15 | Baseline, Post test, 6 months | BDI-S PHQ-15 | Significant reduction in BDI-S scores at post (p = .0005) and 6 months (p = .0005). PHQ-15 significant at post assessment (p = .004), and at 6 months (p = .01) | Yes |
Kanter et al. (2010) [57] | Culturally-adapted, Behavioral Activation (12 sessions) | Spanish/English | UC | Pre/post study design | 10 | Pre and post (following 12 sessions or 20 weeks which ever came first) | BDI-II HRSD | Significant improvements observed on BDI-II, large effect size d = 1.67, HRSD, effect size d = 1.57 | Yes |
Schmaling et al. (2008) [60] | Problem Solving Therapy for Primary Care (8 sessions) | Spanish/English | Participants refusing treatment, Non-completers | Pre/post repeated measures study | 117 | baseline and ~ 4 months | HSCL-20 | Significant improvement following 4+ sessions compared to 3 or less sessions, p < .05. ≥4 sessions decrease of m = .86 point. ≤ 3 sessions decrease of m = .4 points | Yes |
Chu et al. (2012) [50] | Culturally-adapted, Problem Solving Therapy (12 sessions) | English | None | Pilot case study | 1 | Pre and post intervention | PHQ-9 Mood | PHQ-9 score decreased from 12 to 3 Mood improved | NA |
Beeber et al. (2012) [51] | Culturally-sensitive, home-based IPT (11 in-home sessions with nurse/interpreter, 5 short sessions with interpreter only) | Spanish | Enhanced UC | RCT | 80 | Baseline (T1), 14 (T2), 22 (T3) (termination) weeks and 4 weeks post termination (T4) | CES-D | Significant improvement in CES-D scores : CES-D within group changes: T1 vs T2, p = .021 T1 vs T3, p = .005 T1vs T4, p = .021 | Yes |
Gelman et al. (2005) [55] | Culturally-adapted, group CBT (12× weekly sessions) | Spanish | None | Pilot pre-post repeated measures study | 5 | pre and post intervention | BDI-S | BDI scores significantly reduced (p = .01) | Yes |
Uebelacker et al. (2011) [62] | Telephone depression care management (D-HELP) (8 calls/12 weeks) | Spanish | UC | Pilot RCT | 38 | pre, 6 and 12 weeks post intervention | QUIDS CES-D | Non-significant positive trend towards remission of depression | No |
Renner et al. (2011) [59] | CBT and Self Help group (SH) intervention (15 session/4 months) | CBT: German with interpreter support SH: Turkish | WL | RCT | 38 | Pre, termination, 4 weeks, 6 month follow-up | CES-D, BSI PHQ-Turkish | SHG ineffective, CBT decreased depressive symptoms on BSI only and results deteriorated over time | No |
Characteristics of the studies’ participants
Quality of studies
Author (year) | Randomization | Allocation masking | Attrition | Missing data handling | Limitations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dwight-Johnson et al. (2011) [54] | Yes: Stratified permuted-block randomization | Participants: No | Intervention: 16% | Intent-to-treat analysis (ITT) employed | No power calculation |
ITT can increase chance of false positive | |||||
Researchers: No | Control: 30% | ||||
Outcome Assessor: Yes | |||||
Ueberlacker et al. (2011) [62] | Yes: method not described | Participants: No | Intervention: 26% | Not described in detail, but it appears that missing data points have been excluded. | Small sample, risk of attrition bias |
Researchers: No | Control: 42% | ||||
No power calculation | |||||
Outcome Assessor: Yes | |||||
Yeung et al. (2010) [64] | Yes: computer-generated table | Participants: No | Not reported | Not reported | No power calculation |
Researchers: No | |||||
Outcome Assessor: Yes | |||||
Yeung et al. (2012) [63] | Yes: randomized using computer-generated numbers | Participants: No | Intervention: 27% | Used data from week 6 if no data available at week 12. If neither data point available participant was excluded from analysis | Power calculation suggest much larger sample is required |
Researchers: No | Control: 15% | ||||
Outcome Assessor: Yes | |||||
Choi et al. (2012) [53] | Yes: randomization process by independent person | Participants: No | Intervention: 34% | Baseline carried forward | The missing data approach may introduce false positives. No power calculation Small sample |
Researchers: No | Control: 10% | ||||
Outcome Assessor: No | |||||
Beeber et al. (2010) [51] | Yes: block randomization | Participants: No | Intervention: 13% | Power calculation completed and extra participants included to compensate for possible attrition | Small sample |
Researchers: No Outcome Assessor: No | Control: 10% | ||||
Renner et al. (2011) [59] | Yes: method not described | Participants: Not reported | Intervention CBT: 52% | Non-completers excluded | Small sample high risk of attrition bias |
Researchers: Not reported | Intervention SHG: 28% | ||||
Potential risk of selection bias | |||||
Outcome Assessor: Not reported | Control: 45% | ||||
No power calculation |