Cited by 243Nutritional Studies and DietMental Health Treatment and AccessFatty Acid Research and Health

The impact of whole-of-diet interventions on depression and anxiety: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Opie, Rachelle S, O’Neil, Adrienne, Itsiopoulos, Catherine, Jacka, Felice N·2015·Public Health Nutrition

Abstract

Objective: Non-pharmacological approaches to the treatment of depression and anxiety are of increasing importance, with emerging evidence supporting a role for lifestyle factors in the development of these disorders. Observational evidence supports a relationship between habitual diet quality and depression. Less is known about the causative effects of diet on mental health outcomes. Therefore a systematic review was undertaken of randomised controlled trials of dietary interventions that used depression and/or anxiety outcomes and sought to identify characteristics of programme success. Design: A systematic search of the Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and PyscInfo databases was conducted for articles published between April 1971 and May 2014. Results: Of the 1274 articles identified, seventeen met eligibility criteria and were included. All reported depression outcomes and ten reported anxiety or total mood disturbance. Compared with a control condition, almost half (47 %) of the studies observed significant effects on depression scores in favour of the treatment group. The remaining studies reported a null effect. Effective dietary interventions were based on a single delivery mode, employed a dietitian and were less likely to recommend reducing red meat intake, select leaner meat products or follow a low-cholesterol diet. Conclusions: Although there was a high level of heterogeneity, we found some evidence for dietary interventions improving depression outcomes. However, as only one trial specifically investigated the impact of a dietary intervention in individuals with clinical depression, appropriately powered trials that examine the effects of dietary improvement on mental health outcomes in those with clinical disorders are required.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1368980014002614

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lifestyle targeted behavioral interventions in depression have typically shown small-to-medium effect sizes of ~0.3-0.5, while the placebo effect of behavioral interventions is even smaller ~0.2 in RCTs.

    “Lifestyle targeted behavioral interventions in depression have typically shown small-to-medium effect sizes of ~0.3–0.5 [4–16], while the placebo effect of behavioral interventions are even smaller ~0.2 in RCTs [101, 102].”

    From Personalized machine learning guided intervention for optimizing lifestyle behaviors in depression: a pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Summary of evidence (page unavailable) reports that successful whole-of-diet interventions had depression effect sizes of 0.19–2.02, ranging from small to very large. It does not establish that lifestyle-targeted behavioral interventions typically have effect sizes of 0.3–0.5. The placebo-effect figure is attached to different citations in the citing sentence and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Physical activity/exercise, dietary modification, adequate sleep, social interaction, and mindfulness-based meditation have shown treatment efficacy in separate clinical trials of depression.

    “These include physical activity/exercise, dietary modification, adequate sleep and social interaction, as well as mindfulness-based meditation, all of which have shown treatment efficacy in separate clinical trials of depression [4–16].”
  • The 6-week iMAP protocols in sleep, exercise, diet, or social connection were grounded in evidence-based intervention protocols for these lifestyle domains in depression.

    “Description of each 6-week iMAP in either sleep/ exercise/ diet/ social connection domain is provided in Supplementary Methods section S.5 and is grounded in evidence-based intervention protocols in these lifestyle domains in the context of depression [5, 6, 8, 11, 16, 68–70].”
  • Improvements in all lifestyle domains targeted are associated with improvements in the QOL mental component summary measure.

    “This is aligned with evidence showing that improvements in all lifestyle domains that we targeted is associated with improvements in the QOL mental component summary measure [5, 6, 70, 81, 82].”

    From Personalized machine learning guided intervention for optimizing lifestyle behaviors in depression: a pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Summary of evidence (page unavailable) reports that some whole-of-diet interventions improved depression scores, but it does not assess improvements across all targeted lifestyle domains against a QOL mental component summary measure. The study table lists QOL outcomes for some trials without reporting the claimed association. Searches for “mental component summary” and lifestyle-domain improvements found no passage establishing it. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Dietetic Association, Scientific Affairs & Research (2007) ADA Evidence Analysis Manual, Edition V. Chicago, IL: ADA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Opie, R. S., O’Neil, A., Itsiopoulos, C., & Jacka, F. N.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Opie, Rachelle S
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Published
2015-08
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
2074-2093
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
OpenAlex
W2136009994
Cited by
243
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Sanofi
  • Geelong Region Medical Research Foundation
  • David and Elaine Potter Foundation
  • Australian Rotary Health
  • Ian Potter Foundation
  • Meat and Livestock Australia
  • La Trobe University
  • Deakin University (1052865)
  • University of Melbourne
  • Servier
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1052865)
  • Brain and Behaviour Research Institute, University of Wollongong
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
Keywords
dietary intervention, depression, anxiety, diet quality, non-pharmacological treatment, lifestyle intervention, red meat consumption, cholesterol-lowering diet, mood disturbance, mental health
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review