Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a lay counsellor-delivered brief psychological treatment for harmful drinking in men, in primary care in India: a randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nadkarni A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5236065 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a lay counsellor-delivered brief psychological treatment for harmful drinking in men, in primary care in India: a randomised controlled trial.
Nadkarni Abhijit A Weobong Benedict B Weiss Helen A HA McCambridge Jim J Bhat Bhargav B Katti Basavaraj B Murthy Pratima P King Michael M McDaid David D Park A-La AL Wilson G Terence GT Kirkwood Betty B Fairburn Christopher G CG Velleman Richard R Patel Vikram V
Lancet (London, England) 20161215 10065
<h4>Background</h4>Although structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for harmful drinking, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief psychological treatment delivered by lay counsellors to patients with harmful drinking attending routine primary health-care settings.<h4>Methods</h4>In ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCounselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief intervention delivered by lay counsellors, enhanced remission and abstinence over 3 months among male primary care attendees with harmful drinking in a setting in India. We evaluated the sustainability of the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of CAP over 12 months, and the effects of the hypothesized mediator 'readiness to change' on clinical outcomes.Methods and findingsMale primary care attendees aged 18-65 years screening with harmful drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) were randomised to either CAP plus enhanced usual care (EUC) (n = 188) or EUC alone (n = 189), of whom 89% completed assessments at 3 months, and 84% at 12 months. Primary outcomes were remission and mean standard ethanol consumed in the past 14 days, and the proposed mediating variable was readiness to change at 3 months. CAP participants maintained the gains they showed at the end of treatment through the 12-month follow-up, with the proportion with remission (AUDIT score < 8: 54.3% versus 31.9%; adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.71 [95% CI 1.32, 2.22]; p < 0.001) and abstinence in the past 14 days (45.1% versus 26.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.92 [95% CI 1.19, 3.10]; p = 0.008) being significantly higher in the CAP plus EUC arm than in the EUC alone arm. CAP participants also fared better on secondary outcomes including recovery (AUDIT score < 8 at 3 and 12 months: 27.4% versus 15.1%; aPR 1.90 [95% CI 1.21, 3.00]; p = 0.006) and percent of days abstinent (mean percent [SD] 71.0% [38.2] versus 55.0% [39.8]; adjusted mean difference 16.1 [95% CI 7.1, 25.0]; p = 0.001). The intervention effect for remission was higher at 12 months than at 3 months (aPR 1.50 [95% CI 1.09, 2.07]). There was no evidence of an intervention effect on Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score, suicidal behaviour, percentage of days of heavy drinking, Short Inventory of Problems score, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 score, days unable to work, or perpetration of intimate partner violence. Economic analyses indicated that CAP plus EUC was dominant over EUC alone, with lower costs and better outcomes; uncertainty analysis showed a 99% chance of CAP being cost-effective per remission achieved from a health system perspective, using a willingness to pay threshold equivalent to 1 month's wages for an unskilled manual worker in Goa. Readiness to change level at 3 months mediated the effect of CAP on mean standard ethanol consumption at 12 months (indirect effect -6.014 [95% CI -13.99, -0.046]). Serious adverse events were infrequent, and prevalence was similar by arm. The methodological limitations of this trial are the susceptibility of self-reported drinking to social desirability bias, the modest participation rates of eligible patients, and the examination of mediation effects of only 1 mediator and in only half of our sample.ConclusionsCAP's superiority over EUC at the end of treatment was largely stable over time and was mediated by readiness to change. CAP provides better outcomes at lower costs from a societal perspective.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN76465238.
| S-EPMC5595289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite harmful drinking causing a significant burden on global health, there is a large treatment gap, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A major barrier to care is the lack of adequately skilled human resources to deliver contextually appropriate treatments. This paper describes the systematic process used to develop Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP), a brief psychological treatment (PT) for delivery by lay counselors in routine primary care settings to men with harmful drinking in India.CAP was developed using a methodology involving 3 sequential steps: (i) identifying potential treatment strategies; (ii) developing a theoretical framework for the treatment; and (iii) evaluating the acceptability and feasibility of the treatment.CAP is a 3-phase treatment delivered over 1 to 4 sessions based on a motivational interviewing (MI) stance and involves the following strategies: assessment and personalized feedback, family engagement, drink refusal skills, skills to address drinking urges, problem-solving skills and handling difficult emotions, and relapse prevention and management. Data from a case series were used to inform several adaptations to enhance the acceptability of CAP to the recipients and feasibility of delivery by lay counselors of the treatment, for example expansion of the target group to include alcohol-dependent patients and the extension of the delivery settings to include home-based delivery. There was preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of CAP.CAP is an acceptable brief PT for harmful drinking delivered by lay counselors in primary care whose effectiveness is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial based in primary care in Goa, India.
| S-EPMC4862032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for depression, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief psychological treatment (Healthy Activity Program [HAP]) for delivery by lay counsellors to patients with moderately severe to severe depression in primary health-care settings.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants aged 18-65 years scoring more than 14 on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) indicating moderately severe to severe depression from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. Pregnant women or patients who needed urgent medical attention or were unable to communicate clearly were not eligible. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with HAP in randomly sized blocks (block size four to six [two to four for men]), stratified by primary health centre and sex, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC were masked. Primary outcomes were depression symptom severity on the Beck Depression Inventory version II and remission from depression (PHQ-9 score of <10) at 3 months in the intention-to-treat population, assessed by masked field researchers. Secondary outcomes were disability, days unable to work, behavioural activation, suicidal thoughts or attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN95149997.FindingsBetween Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 495 participants (247 [50%] to the EUC plus HAP group [two of whom were subsequently excluded because of protocol violations] and 248 [50%] to the EUC alone group), of whom 466 (95%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (230 [49%] in the EUC plus HAP group and 236 [51%] in the EUC alone group). Participants in the EUC plus HAP group had significantly lower symptom severity (Beck Depression Inventory version II in EUC plus HAP group 19·99 [SD 15·70] vs 27·52 [13·26] in EUC alone group; adjusted mean difference -7·57 [95% CI -10·27 to -4·86]; p<0·0001) and higher remission (147 [64%] of 230 had a PHQ-9 score of <10 in the HAP plus EUC group vs 91 [39%] of 236 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·61 [1·34-1·93]) than did those in the EUC alone group. EUC plus HAP showed better results than did EUC alone for the secondary outcomes of disability (adjusted mean difference -2·73 [-4·39 to -1·06]; p=0·001), days out of work (-2·29 [-3·84 to -0·73]; p=0·004), intimate partner physical violence in women (0·53 [0·29-0·96]; p=0·04), behavioural activation (2·17 [1·34-3·00]; p<0·0001), and suicidal thoughts or attempts (0·61 [0·45-0·83]; p=0·001). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $9333 (95% CI 3862-28 169; 2015 international dollars), with an 87% chance of being cost-effective in the study setting. Serious adverse events were infrequent and similar between groups (nine [4%] in the EUC plus HAP group vs ten [4%] in the EUC alone group; p=1·00).InterpretationHAP delivered by lay counsellors plus EUC was better than EUC alone was for patients with moderately severe to severe depression in routine primary care in Goa, India. HAP was readily accepted by this previously untreated population and was cost-effective in this setting. HAP could be a key strategy to reduce the treatment gap for depressive disorders, the leading mental health disorder worldwide.FundingWellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC5236064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMental health problems are a leading cause of disability in adolescents worldwide. Problem solving is a well-tested mental health intervention in many populations. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a brief, transdiagnostic problem-solving intervention for common adolescent mental health problems when delivered by non-specialist school counsellors in New Delhi, India.MethodsThis randomised trial was done in six government-run schools (three all-boys schools, two all-girls schools, and one co-educational school) that serve low-income communities. We recruited participants from grades 9 to 12 (ages 12-20 years) by selecting students with persistently elevated mental health symptoms accompanied by distress or functional impairment. Clinical eligibility criteria were assessed by research assistants using the Hindi-language version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), with reference to locally validated borderline cutoff scores of 19 or greater for boys and 20 or greater for girls on the SDQ Total Difficulties scale, an abnormal score of 2 or more on the SDQ Impact scale, and persistence of more than 1 month on the SDQ Chronicity index. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to problem solving delivered through a brief (2-3 week) counsellor-led intervention with supporting printed materials (intervention group), or problem solving delivered via printed booklets alone (control group). Primary outcomes were adolescent-reported mental health symptoms (SDQ Total Difficulties scale) and idiographic psychosocial problems (Youth Top Problems [YTP]) at 6 weeks. Primary analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis at the 6-week endpoint. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03630471.FindingsParticipants were enrolled between Aug 20, and Dec 4, 2018. 283 eligible adolescents were referred to the trial, and 251 (89%) of these were enrolled (mean age 15·61 years; 174 [69%] boys). 125 participants were allocated to each group (after accounting for one participant in the intervention group who withdrew consent after randomisation). Primary outcome data were available for 245 (98%) participants. At 6 weeks, the mean YTP scores were 3·52 (SD 2·66) in the intervention group and 4·60 (2·75) in the control group (adjusted mean difference -1·01, 95% CI -1·63 to -0·38; adjusted effect size 0·36, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·61; p=0·0015). The mean SDQ Total Difficulties scores were 17·48 (5·45) in the intervention group and 18·33 (5·45) in the control group (-0·86, -2·14 to 0·41; 0·16, -0·09 to 0·41; p=0·18). We observed no adverse events.InterpretationA brief lay counsellor-delivered problem-solving intervention combined with printed booklets seemed to have a modest effect on psychosocial outcomes among adolescents with diverse mental health problems compared with problem-solving booklets alone. This counsellor-delivered intervention might be a suitable first-line intervention in a stepped care approach, which is being evaluated in ongoing studies.FundingWellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC7386943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo examine the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary cost-effectiveness of a lay counsellor delivered psychological treatment for men with alcohol dependence in primary care.DesignSingle-blind individually randomized trial comparing counselling for alcohol problems (CAP) plus enhanced usual care (EUC) versus EUC only.SettingTen primary health centres in Goa, India.ParticipantsMen (n = 135) scoring ≥ 20 on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT). Sixty-six participants were randomized to EUC and 69 to CAP + EUC.InterventionsCAP, a lay counsellor-delivered psychological treatment for harmful drinking, with referral to de-addiction centre for medically assisted detoxification. EUC comprised consultation with physician, providing screening results and referral to a de-addiction centre.MeasurementsBaseline socio-demographic data, readiness to change and perceived usefulness of counselling. Acceptability and feasibility process indicators such as data on screening and therapy. Outcomes were measured at 3 and 12 months post-randomization and included remission, mean daily alcohol consumed, percentage of days abstinent (PDA), percentage of days of heavy drinking (PDHD), recovery, uptake of detoxification services, impacts of alcohol dependence, resource use and costs.FindingsParticipants in the CAP + EUC arm had more numerically but not statistically significantly favourable outcomes compared with those in the EUC arm for (a) remission at 3 months [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.74-5.15] and 12 months (aOR = 1.90, 95% CI = 0.72-5.00), (b) proportion of non-drinkers at 3 months (aOR = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.58-2.75) and 12 months (aOR = 1.25; 95% CI = 0.58-2.64) and (c) ethanol consumption among drinkers at 3 months (count ratio = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.58-1.45) and 12 months (count ratio = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.73-1.54). There was no statistically significant evidence of a difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between the two arms. From a societal perspective, there was a 53% chance of CAP + EUC being cost-effective in achieving remission at 12 months at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $415.ConclusionsLay counsellor-delivered psychological treatment for men with alcohol dependence (AD) in primary care may be effective in managing AD in low- and middle-income countries. A definitive trial of the intervention is warranted.
| S-EPMC6563185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe investigated the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and preliminary effectiveness of the Counselling for Alcohol Problems (CAP) psychological intervention delivered by non-specialist health workers (NSHW) to participants with alcohol use disorder (AUD) and comorbid depression in primary care.MethodsWe used data from a single blind randomised controlled trial conducted in ten primary health care centres in Goa, India. Adult male harmful or dependent drinkers with or without depression were randomized (1:1) to receive either CAP & enhanced usual care (EUC) or EUC only. Process indicators such as the number of completed counselling sessions were assessed and compared between comorbid and non-comorbid participants. Remission from AUD and depression along with abstinence were measured at 3 and 12 months post randomisation. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis, employing multivariable regression analyses.Results271 participants had symptoms of comorbid depression; 241 did not. Both groups completed a similar number of counselling sessions (adjusted Mean Difference 0.05, 95 %CI -0.24-0.34;p = 0.72). Among comorbid participants, CAP did not lead to more frequent adverse events compared to EUC only (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.84, 0.43-1.64;p = 0.62), and there was no evidence for an effect of CAP on remission from AUD or depression at 3 months (aOR 1.51, 0.84-2.74;p = 0.17 and aOR 0.74, 0.43-1.27;p = 0.28) and 12 months follow-up, respectively (aOR 1.69, 0.96-3.01;p = 0.08 and aOR 1.08, 0.62-1.87;p = 0.79).ConclusionsBrief therapies like CAP can be safely delivered by NSHWs to patients with comorbid AUD and depression, but their effectiveness may be limited and requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC8504199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveBrief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group.MethodsWe randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys.ResultsThe reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%).ConclusionEmergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.
| S-EPMC3811141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRoutine alcohol screening of adolescents in pediatric settings is recommended, and could be facilitated by a very brief empirically validated alcohol screen based on alcohol consumption. This study used national sample data to test the screening performance of 3 alcohol consumption items (ie, frequency of use in the past year, quantity per occasion, frequency of heavy episodic drinking) in identifying youth with alcohol-related problems.MethodsData were from youth aged 12 to 18 participating in the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2000 to 2007. The screening performance of 3 alcohol consumption items was tested, by age and gender, against 2 outcomes: any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition alcohol use disorder symptom ("moderate"-risk outcome), and a diagnosis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition alcohol dependence ("high"-risk outcome).ResultsPrevalence of the 2 outcomes increased with age: any alcohol use disorder symptom ranged from 1.4% to 29.2%; alcohol dependence ranged from 0.2% to 5.3%. Frequency of drinking had higher sensitivity and specificity in identifying both outcomes, compared with quantity per occasion and heavy episodic drinking frequency. For both outcomes, results indicate the utility of similar cut points for drinking frequency for males and females at each age. Age-specific frequency cut points, however, are recommended for both moderate- and high-risk outcomes to maximize screening performance.ConclusionsDrinking frequency provides an empirically supported brief screen to efficiently identify youth with alcohol-related problems.
| S-EPMC3269115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundApproximately one-fifth of high-school seniors and college students currently vape nicotine. Adolescents express a desire to quit vaping, and case reports have shown promise for e-cigarette tapering with dual behavioral and pharmacologic therapies. However, there are no published clinical trials to date that test these intervention approaches for adolescent nicotine vaping cessation. In this three-arm randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, we aim to assess the efficacy of varenicline in combination with brief behavioral counseling and texting support on vaping cessation in adolescents dependent on vaped nicotine.MethodsThe study will enroll 300 individuals between the ages of 16-25 with daily or near-daily nicotine vaping who reside in the Greater Boston area. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio in blocks of six to one of the three arms: (1) a 12-week course of varenicline titrated to 1 mg bid, brief behavioral counseling delivered by a lay counselor, and an introduction to This is Quitting (TIQ) texting support created by the Truth Initiative; (2) a 12-week course of placebo, brief behavioral counseling, and TIQ; and (3) 12 weeks of enhanced usual care, consisting of advice to quit and an introduction to TIQ. The primary outcome will be biochemically verified continuous vaping abstinence at the end of the treatment (week 12). Secondary outcomes include continuous abstinence at follow-up (week 24), 7-day point prevalence abstinence at weeks 12 and 24, safety and tolerability of varenicline in an adolescent vaping population, as well as change in mood and nicotine withdrawal symptoms across the intervention period. Exploratory outcomes include change in comorbid substance use behaviors and nicotine dependence. Analysis will be intent-to-treat, with multiple imputation sensitivity analyses for participants with missing or incomplete outcome data.DiscussionThis is the first study to evaluate varenicline in combination with a novel, brief, lay counselor delivered vaping cessation program for adolescents who vape nicotine. Results will inform clinicians on the effectiveness and acceptability of this promising, but not yet tested intervention.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05367492.
| S-EPMC10050714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Healthy Activity Programme (HAP), a brief behavioural intervention delivered by lay counsellors, enhanced remission over 3 months among primary care attendees with depression in peri-urban and rural settings in India. We evaluated the sustainability of the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of HAP over 12 months, and the effects of the hypothesized mediator of activation on clinical outcomes.Methods and findingsPrimary care attendees aged 18-65 years screened with moderately severe to severe depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) were randomised to either HAP plus enhanced usual care (EUC) (n = 247) or EUC alone (n = 248), of whom 95% completed assessments at 3 months, and 91% at 12 months. Primary outcomes were severity on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and remission on the PHQ-9. HAP participants maintained the gains they showed at the end of treatment through the 12-month follow-up (difference in mean BDI-II score between 3 and 12 months = -0.34; 95% CI -2.37, 1.69; p = 0.74), with lower symptom severity scores than participants who received EUC alone (adjusted mean difference in BDI-II score = -4.45; 95% CI -7.26, -1.63; p = 0.002) and higher rates of remission (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.36; 95% CI 1.15, 1.61; p < 0.009). They also fared better on most secondary outcomes, including recovery (aPR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.29, 3.03; p = 0.002), any response over time (aPR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.27, 1.66; p < 0.001), higher likelihood of reporting a minimal clinically important difference (aPR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.17, 1.71; p < 0.001), and lower likelihood of reporting suicidal behaviour (aPR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.51, 1.01; p = 0.06). HAP plus EUC also had a marginal effect on WHO Disability Assessment Schedule score at 12 months (aPR = -1.58; 95% CI -3.33, 0.17; p = 0.08); other outcomes (days unable to work, intimate partner violence toward females) did not statistically significantly differ between the two arms. Economic analyses indicated that HAP plus EUC was dominant over EUC alone, with lower costs and better outcomes; uncertainty analysis showed that from this health system perspective there was a 95% chance of HAP being cost-effective, given a willingness to pay threshold of Intl$16,060-equivalent to GDP per capita in Goa-per quality-adjusted life year gained. Patient-reported behavioural activation level at 3 months mediated the effect of the HAP intervention on the 12-month depression score (β = -2.62; 95% CI -3.28, -1.97; p < 0.001). Serious adverse events were infrequent, and prevalence was similar by arm. We were unable to assess possible episodes of remission and relapse that may have occurred between our outcome assessment time points of 3 and 12 months after randomisation. We did not account for or evaluate the effect of mediators other than behavioural activation.ConclusionsHAP's superiority over EUC at the end of treatment was largely stable over time and was mediated by patient activation. HAP provides better outcomes at lower costs from a perspective covering publicly funded healthcare services and productivity impacts on patients and their families.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN95149997.
| S-EPMC5595303 | biostudies-literature