Smartphone-Supported versus Full Behavioural Activation for Depression: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There is need for more cost and time effective treatments for depression. This is the first randomised controlled trial in which a blended treatment--including four face-to-face sessions and a smartphone application--was compared against a full behavioural treatment. Hence, the aim of the current paper was to examine whether a blended smartphone treatment was non-inferior to a full behavioural activation treatment for depression.Methods
This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (NCT01819025) comparing a blended treatment (n=46) against a full ten-session treatment (n=47) for people suffering from major depression. Primary outcome measure was the BDI-II, that was administered at pre- and post-treatment, as well as six months after the treatment.Results
Results showed significant improvements in both groups across time on the primary outcome measure (within-group Cohen's d=1.35; CI [-0.82, 3.52] to d=1.47; CI [-0.41, 3.35]; between group d=-0.13 CI [-2.37, 2.09] and d=-0.10 CI [-2.53, 2.33]). At the same time, the blended treatment reduced the therapist time with an average of 47%.Conclusions
We could not establish whether the blended treatment was non-inferior to a full BA treatment. Nevertheless, this study points to that the blended treatment approach could possibly treat nearly twice as many patients suffering from depression by using a smartphone application as add-on. More studies are needed before we can suggest that the blended treatment method is a promising cost-effective alternative to regular face-to-face treatment for depression.Trial registration
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Treatment of Depression With Smartphone Support NCT01819025.
SUBMITTER: Ly KH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4444307 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Smartphone-Supported versus Full Behavioural Activation for Depression: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Ly Kien Hoa KH Topooco Naira N Cederlund Hanna H Wallin Anna A Bergström Jan J Molander Olof O Carlbring Per P Andersson Gerhard G
PloS one 20150526 5
<h4>Background</h4>There is need for more cost and time effective treatments for depression. This is the first randomised controlled trial in which a blended treatment--including four face-to-face sessions and a smartphone application--was compared against a full behavioural treatment. Hence, the aim of the current paper was to examine whether a blended smartphone treatment was non-inferior to a full behavioural activation treatment for depression.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a randomised controlled ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDepression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy-cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-is complex and costly. A simpler therapy-behavioural activation (BA)-might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954.FindingsBetween Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI -1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [-1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed).InterpretationWe found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC5007415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of two smartphone-delivered treatments: one based on behavioural activation (BA) and other on mindfulness.Parallel randomised controlled, open, trial. Participants were allocated using an online randomisation tool, handled by an independent person who was separate from the staff conducting the study.General community, with recruitment nationally through mass media and advertisements.40 participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder received a BA treatment, and 41 participants received a mindfulness treatment. 9 participants were lost at the post-treatment.An 8-week long behaviour programme administered via a smartphone application. Mindfulness: An 8-week long mindfulness programme, administered via a smartphone application.The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale (PHQ-9).81 participants were randomised (mean age 36.0 years (SD=10.8)) and analysed. Results showed no significant interaction effects of group and time on any of the outcome measures either from pretreatment to post-treatment or from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up. Subgroup analyses showed that the BA treatment was more effective than the mindfulness treatment among participants with higher initial severity of depression from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up (PHQ-9: F (1, 362.1)=5.2, p<0.05). In contrast, the mindfulness treatment worked better than the BA treatment among participants with lower initial severity from pretreatment to the 6-month follow-up (PHQ-9: F (1, 69.3)=7.7, p<0.01); BDI-II: (F(1, 53.60)=6.25, p<0.05).The two interventions did not differ significantly from one another. For participants with higher severity of depression, the treatment based on BA was superior to the treatment based on mindfulness. For participants with lower initial severity, the treatment based on mindfulness worked significantly better than the treatment based on BA.Clinical Trials NCT01463020.
| S-EPMC3902198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBehavioural weight loss (BWL) treatment is the standard evidence-based treatment for severe obesity (SO; body mass index ≥40.0 kg/m2 or ≥35.0 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidity), leading to moderate weight loss which often cannot be maintained in the long term. Because weight loss depends on patients' use of weight management skills, it is important to support them in daily life. In an ecological momentary intervention design, this clinical trial aims to adapt, refine and evaluate a personalised cognitive-behavioural smartphone application (app) in BWL treatment to foster patients' weight management skills use in everyday life. It is hypothesised that using the app is feasible and acceptable, improves weight loss and increases skills use and well-being.Methods and analysisIn the pilot phase, the app will be adapted, piloted and optimised for BWL treatment following a participatory patient-oriented approach. In the subsequent single-centre, assessor-blind, exploratory randomised controlled trial, 90 adults with SO will be randomised to BWL treatment over 6 months with versus without adjunctive app. Primary outcome is the amount of weight loss (kg) at post-treatment (6 months), compared with pretreatment, derived from measured body weight. Secondary outcomes encompass feasibility, acceptance, weight management skills use, well-being and anthropometrics assessed at pretreatment, midtreatment (3 months), post-treatment (6 months) and 6-month follow-up (12 months). An intent-to-treat linear model with randomisation arm, pretreatment weight and stratification variables as covariates will serve to compare arms regarding weight at post-treatment. Secondary analyses will include linear mixed models, generalised linear models and regression and mediation analyses. For safety analysis (serious) adverse events will be analysed descriptively.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Leipzig (DE-21-00013674) and notified to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.RegistrationThis study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00026018), www.drks.de.Trial registration numberDRKS00026018.
| S-EPMC9980333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Depression is a common disorder among older people living in residential aged care facilities. Several trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of behavioural therapies in treating depressive symptoms in older adults living in the community and in residential aged care. Behavioural Activation is demonstrably effective even when delivered by non-specialists (staff without formal psychological training), although strategies for adapting its use in residential aged care facilities are yet to be explored. This study will determine whether training residential care staff in the use of a structured Behavioural Activation programme is more effective at decreasing depressive symptoms among older residents than internet-based training about depression recognition and management alone. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:The behavioural activation in nursing homes to treat depression (BAN-Dep) trial is a pragmatic two-arm parallel clustered randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 666 residents aged 60 or older from 100 residential aged care facilities, which will be randomly assigned to the Behavioural Activation or control intervention. Staff in both treatment groups will be encouraged to complete the Beyondblue Professional Education to Aged Care e-learning programme to improve their recognition of and ability to respond to depression in older adults. Selected staff from intervention facilities will undergo additional training to deliver an 8-module Behavioural Activation programme to residents with subthreshold symptoms of depression-they will receive ongoing Mental support from trained Behavioural Activation therapists. Outcome measures will be collected by blind research officer at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 is the primary outcome measure of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The trial will comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki for Human Rights and is overseen by the University of Western Australia (reference RA/4/20/4234) and Melbourne Health (reference number HREC/18/MH/47) Ethics Committees. The results of this research project will be disseminated through publications and/or presentations in a variety of media to health professionals, academics, clinicians and the public. Only de-identified group data will be presented. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ACTRN12618000634279.
| S-EPMC6830697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDepression is the leading cause of life years lost due to disability. Appropriate prevention has the potential to reduce the incidence of new cases of depression, however, traditional prevention approaches face significant scalability issues. Prevention programmes delivered by via smartphone applications provide a potential solution. The workplace is an ideal setting to roll out this form of intervention, particularly among industries that are unlikely to access traditional health initiatives and whose workplace characteristics create accessibility and portability issues. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a smartphone application designed to prevent depression and improve well-being. The effectiveness of the app as a universal, selective and indicated prevention tool will also be evaluated.Methods and analysisA multicentre randomised controlled trial, to determine the effectiveness of the intervention compared with an active mood monitoring control in reducing depressive symptoms (primary outcome) and the prevalence of depression at 3 months, with secondary outcomes assessing well-being and work performance. Employees from a range of industries will be invited to participate. Participants with likely current depression at baseline will be excluded. Following baseline assessment, participants, blinded to their allocation, will be randomised to receive one of two versions of the application: headgear (a 30-day mental health intervention) or a control application (mood monitoring for 30 days). Both versions of the app contain a risk calculator to provide a measure of future risk. Analyses will be conducted within an intention-to-treat framework using mixed modelling, with additional analyses conducted to compare the moderating effect of baseline risk level and depression symptom severity on the intervention's effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe current trial has received ethics approval from the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HC17021). Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000548336; Results.
| S-EPMC6089262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDepression is a leading mental health problem worldwide. People with long-term conditions are at increased risk of experiencing depression. The COVID-19 pandemic led to strict social restrictions being imposed across the UK population. Social isolation can have negative consequences on the physical and mental wellbeing of older adults. In the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial we will test whether a brief psychological intervention (based on Behavioural Activation), delivered remotely, can mitigate depression and loneliness in older adults with long-term conditions during isolation.MethodsWe will conduct a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial across several research sites, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BASIL+ intervention. Participants will be recruited via participating general practices across England and Wales. Participants must be aged ≥65 with two or more long-term conditions, or a condition that may indicate they are within a 'clinically extremely vulnerable' group in relation to COVID-19, and have scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), to be eligible for inclusion. Randomisation will be 1:1, stratified by research site. Intervention participants will receive up to eight intervention sessions delivered remotely by trained BASIL+ Support Workers and supported by a self-help booklet. Control participants will receive usual care, with additional signposting to reputable sources of self-help and information, including advice on keeping mentally and physically well. A qualitative process evaluation will also be undertaken to explore the acceptability of the BASIL+ intervention, as well as barriers and enablers to integrating the intervention into participants' existing health and care support, and the impact of the intervention on participants' mood and general wellbeing in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with intervention participants, participant's caregivers/supportive others and BASIL+ Support Workers. Outcome data will be collected at one, three, and 12 months post-randomisation. Clinical and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms at the three-month follow up, measured by the PHQ9. Secondary outcomes include loneliness, social isolation, anxiety, quality of life, and a bespoke health services use questionnaire.DiscussionThis study is the first large-scale trial evaluating a brief Behavioural Activation intervention in this population, and builds upon the results of a successful external pilot trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov identifier ISRCTN63034289, registered on 5th February 2021.
| S-EPMC8947398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design.SettingFour hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial.InterventionsPTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses.ResultsAt 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis.ConclusionsPTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica.Trial registrationNCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.
| S-EPMC8859734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInsomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder associated with significant economic and personal burdens. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTI) is considered the gold standard intervention for insomnia and its efficacy has been well demonstrated. However, the core treatment strategies of CBTI require significant behavioural change, which many individuals find challenging. As a result, although CBTI is efficacious, its effectiveness is reduced by modest levels of adherence in typical clinical settings. This is problematic as adherence is essential to attain desired treatment outcomes. Sleep is often a dyadic process, with approximately 60% of Australian adults sharing a bed. Hence, the present study aims to determine whether incorporating bed partners into treatment for insomnia increases treatment adherence and completion. The impact of adherence on symptoms of insomnia will also be examined.MethodsThis study is a mixed-effects randomised effectiveness trial of partner-assisted CBTI (PA-CBTI). It is an "effectiveness" (as opposed to "efficacy") trial, due to the focus on "real world" clinic-based clients and adherence/attrition as outcomes. Participants will include 120 clients with insomnia who are randomly assigned, in equal numbers, to PA-CBTI, traditional individual CBTI (i-CBTI), or partner-assisted sleep management therapy (PA-SMT; which serves as the control group). All interventions consist of seven weekly 1-h sessions. Treatment outcome is evaluated using clinician-rated treatment adherence, and diary-based adherence to stimulus control and sleep restriction. Clients and partners complete major assessments at pre- and post-treatment, and at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome variables include actigraphy, self-report measures related to sleep, comorbid psychopathology, and relationship functioning.DiscussionThis is the first randomised clinical trial to examine the impact of incorporating the bed partner in the treatment of insomnia. Results will provide new information about the role partners play in clients' insomnia presentation and treatment response, and better define the role of adherence in CBTI. This trial has the potential to optimise treatment outcomes for insomnia by improving adherence and reducing attrition. Results could have far-reaching impacts. Improvements in insomnia have been linked to improvements in mental and physical health and, given the high financial costs of insomnia, this study could have a positive economic impact.Trial registrationACTRN, ACTRN12616000586415 . Registered on 5 May 2016.
| S-EPMC6506966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInfertility generally counts as a profound crisis in the lives of couples and as an emotionally stressful experience. For couples undergoing fertility treatment, this is especially true of the waiting period following embryo transfer, which couples say is the most stressful period during treatment. However, at this specific phase, psychosocial counselling is not always available on the spot. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) study was to test the Positive Adjustment Coping Intervention (PACI), a low-dose, smartphone-supported psychological intervention for women and men undergoing fertility treatment.Methods and analysisThe effectiveness of PACI is tested by means of a prospective two-arm RCT. During the 14-day waiting period between oocyte puncture/oocyte thawing and pregnancy test, participants are randomly assigned to one of the two groups, and both women and men receive daily text messages on their smartphones. One group receives text messages with statements reflecting positive-adjustment coping attitudes, the other group messages containing cognitive distractions. The primary outcome of this study is the reduction of psychosocial burden during the waiting period of reproductive treatment. Furthermore, we want to assess whether there are differences between the interventions in a pre-post assessment. The secondary outcomes are information on perceived effectiveness and practicability of the intervention one month after the waiting period.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University Faculty of Medicine (S-074/2017). Study findings are planned for dissemination via peer-reviewed journal articles and at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03118219; Pre-results.Protocol versionVersion 2.0 dated 18/02/2019.
| S-EPMC6629398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPsychological therapies are first-line interventions for depression, but existing provision is not accessible for many adults with intellectual disabilities. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervention (BeatIt) for people with intellectual disabilities and depression. BeatIt was compared with a guided self-help intervention (StepUp).MethodsWe did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation. Participants aged 18 years or older, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and clinically significant depression were recruited from health and social care services in the UK. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) score at 12 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISCRTN, number ISRCTN09753005.FindingsBetween Aug 8, 2013, and Sept 1, 2015, 161 participants were randomly assigned (84 to BeatIt; 77 to StepUp); 141 (88%) participants completed the trial. No group differences were found in the effects of BeatIt and StepUp based on GDS-LD scores at 12 months (12·03 [SD 7·99] GDS-LD points for BeatIt vs 12·43 [SD 7·64] GDS-LD points for StepUp; mean difference 0·26 GDS-LD points [95% CI -2·18 to 2·70]; p=0·833). Within-group improvements in GDS-LD scores occurred in both groups at 12 months (BeatIt, mean change -4·2 GDS-LD points [95% CI -6·0 to -2·4], p<0·0001; StepUp, mean change -4·5 GDS-LD points [-6·2 to -2·7], p<0·0001), with large effect sizes (BeatIt, 0·590 [95% CI 0·337-0·844]; StepUp, 0·627 [0·380-0·873]). BeatIt was not cost-effective when compared with StepUp, although the economic analyses indicated substantial uncertainty. Treatment costs were only approximately 3·6-6·8% of participants' total support costs. No treatment-related or trial-related adverse events were reported.InterpretationThis study is, to our knowledge, the first large randomised controlled trial assessing individual psychological interventions for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. These findings show that there is no evidence that BeatIt is more effective than StepUp; both are active and potentially effective interventions.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC5714593 | biostudies-literature