Dataset Information

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT: Depression 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.In 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.Between 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).We 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.National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Richards DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5007415 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Richards David A DA Ekers David D McMillan Dean D Taylor Rod S RS Byford Sarah S Warren Fiona C FC Barrett Barbara B Farrand Paul A PA Gilbody Simon S Kuyken Willem W O'Mahen Heather H Watkins Ed R ER Wright Kim A KA Hollon Steven D SD Reed Nigel N Rhodes Shelley S Fletcher Emily E Finning Katie K

Lancet (London, England) 20160723 10047

<h4>Background</h4>Depression 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.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we re ...[more]

PMID: 27461440

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists.DesignSemistructured qualitative interviews analysed using a framework approach.Participants36 participants with major depressive disorder purposively sampled from a randomised controlled trial of BA versus CBT (the COBRA trial).SettingPrimary care psychological therapies services in Devon, Durham and Leeds, UK.ResultsElements of therapy considered to be beneficial included its length and regularity, the opportunity to learn and not dwelling on the past. Homework was an important, although challenging aspect of treatment. Therapists were perceived as experts who played an important role in treatment. For some participants the most important element of therapy was having someone to talk to, but for others the specific factors associated with BA and CBT were crucial, with behavioural change considered important for participants in both treatments, and cognitive change unsurprisingly discussed more by those receiving CBT. Both therapies were considered to have a positive impact on symptoms of depression and other areas of life including feelings about themselves, self-care, work and relationships. Barriers to therapy included work, family life and emotional challenges. A subset (n=2) of BA participants commented that therapy felt too simple, and MHWs could be perceived as inexperienced. Many participants saw therapy as a learning experience, providing them with tools to take away, with work on relapse prevention essential.ConclusionsDespite barriers for some participants, BA and CBT were perceived to have many benefits, to have brought about cognitive and behavioural change and to produce improvements in many domains of participants' lives. To optimise the delivery of BA, inexperienced junior MHWs should be supported through good quality training and ongoing supervision.Trial registration numberISRCTN27473954, 09/12/2011.

Project description:IntroductionSpecific phobias (intense, enduring fears of an object or situation that lead to avoidance and severe distress) are highly prevalent among children and young people. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a well-established, effective intervention, but it can be time consuming and costly because it is routinely delivered over multiple sessions during several months. Alternative methods of treating severe and debilitating phobias in children are needed, like one-session treatment (OST), to reduce time and cost, and to prevent therapeutic drift and help children recover quickly. Our study explores whether (1) outcomes with OST are 'no worse' than outcomes with multisession CBT, (2) OST is acceptable to children, their parents and the practitioners who use it and (3) OST offers good value for money to the National Health Service (NHS) and to society.MethodA pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial will compare OST with multisession CBT-based therapy on their clinical and cost-effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome is a standardised behavioural task of approaching the feared stimulus at 6 months postrandomisation. The outcomes for the within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis are quality-adjusted life years based on EQ-5D-Y, and individual-level costs based of the intervention and use of health and social service care. A nested qualitative evaluation will explore children's, parents' and practitioners' perceptions and experiences of OST. A total of 286 children, 7-16 years old, with DSM-IV diagnoses of specific phobia will be recruited via gatekeepers in the NHS, schools and voluntary youth services, and via public adverts.Ethics and disseminationThe trial received ethical approval from North East and York Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 17/NE/0012). Dissemination plans include publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations in relevant research conferences, local research symposia and seminars for children and their families, and for professionals and service managers.Trial registration numberISRCTN19883421;Pre-results.

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.

Project description:BackgroundData from primary health care in Spain show a high prevalence of the major depressive disorder. Blended treatment (combination of face-to-face and online components) seems to be a very promising tool for the optimization and dissemination of psychological treatments in a cost-effective form. Although there is growing data that confirm the advantages of blended therapies, few studies have analyzed their application in regular clinical practice. The objective of the present paper is to describe the protocol for a clinical study aimed at exploring the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended cognitive behavioral therapy (b-CBT) for depression, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in a primary health care setting.MethodsA two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial will be carried out, with repeated measures (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months) under two conditions: b-CBT and TAU. The b-CBT program will consist in three face-to-face sessions and eight online sessions. The TAU is defined as the routine care delivered by the general practitioner for the treatment of depression in primary care. The primary outcome is a symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Other secondary outcomes will be considered (e.g., quality of life, treatment preference). All participants must be 18 years of age or older and meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. 156 participants will be recruited (78 per arm).DiscussionIt is expected that b-CBT is clinically non-inferior when compared to TAU. This is the first study in Spain to use a b-CBT format in primary and specialized care, and this format could be an efficacious and cost-effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684. Registered on 8 January 2015. Currently recruiting participants.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID).SettingPrimary and secondary mental health settings across the UK's NHS.Participants196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process.InterventionsUp to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation.ResultsNon-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, -∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation.ConclusionsGuided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition.Trial registrationISRCTN13697710.

Dataset Information

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Publications

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets