Dataset Information

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. "High-intensity" cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current "best practice." However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for "low-intensity" interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West-Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through "OCFighter" or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale-Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = -1.91, 95% CI -3.27 to -0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of "clinically significant benefit." cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment. CONCLUSIONS:We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163.

SUBMITTER: Lovell K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5486961 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness.

Lovell Karina K Bower Peter P Gellatly Judith J Byford Sarah S Bee Penny P McMillan Dean D Arundel Catherine C Gilbody Simon S Gega Lina L Hardy Gillian G Reynolds Shirley S Barkham Michael M Mottram Patricia P Lidbetter Nicola N Lidbetter Nicola N Pedley Rebecca R Molle Jo J Peckham Emily E Knopp-Hoffer Jasmin J Price Owen O Connell Janice J Heslin Margaret M Foley Christopher C Plummer Faye F Roberts Christopher C

PLoS medicine 20170627 6

<h4>Background</h4>Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. "High-intensity" cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current "best practice." However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for "low-intensity" interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web ...[more]

PMID: 28654682

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a therapist-guided internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) intervention for adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) compared with untreated patients on a waitlist. DESIGN:Single-blinded randomised controlled trial. SETTING:A research clinic within the regular child and adolescent mental health service in Stockholm, Sweden. PARTICIPANTS:Sixty-seven adolescents (12-17?years) with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition diagnosis of OCD. INTERVENTIONS:Either a 12-week, therapist-guided ICBT intervention or a wait list condition of equal duration. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Cost data were collected at baseline and after treatment, including healthcare use, supportive resources, prescription drugs, prescription-free drugs, school absence and productivity loss, as well as the cost of ICBT. Health outcomes were defined as treatment responder rate and quality-adjusted life years gain. Bootstrapped mixed model analyses were conducted comparing incremental costs and health outcomes between the groups from the societal and healthcare perspectives. RESULTS:Compared with waitlist control, ICBT generated substantial societal cost savings averaging US$-144.98 (95%?CI -159.79 to -130.16) per patient. The cost reductions were mainly driven by reduced healthcare use in the ICBT group. From the societal perspective, the probability of ICBT being cost saving compared with waitlist control was approximately 60%. From the healthcare perspective, the cost per additional responder to ICBT compared with waitlist control was approximately US$78. CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that therapist-guided ICBT is a cost-effective treatment and results in societal cost savings, compared with patients who do not receive evidence-based treatment. Since, at present, most patients with OCD do not have access to evidence-based treatments, the results have important implications for the increasingly strained national and healthcare budgets. Future studies should compare the cost-effectiveness of ICBT with regular face-to-face CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02191631.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a highly disabling psychological disorder with a chronic course if left untreated. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been shown to be an effective treatment, but access to face-to-face CBT is not always possible. Internet-based CBT (iCBT) has become an increasingly viable option. However, no study has compared iCBT to an analogous control condition using a randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE:A 2-armed RCT was used to compare a therapist-assisted 12-module iCBT to an analogous active attention control condition (therapist-assisted internet-based standard progressive relaxation training, iPRT) in adult OCD. This paper reports pre-post findings for OCD symptom severity. METHOD:In total, 179 participants (117 females, 65.7%) were randomized (stratified by gender) into iCBT or iPRT. The iCBT intervention included psychoeducation, mood and behavioral management, exposure and response prevention (ERP), cognitive therapy, and relapse prevention; the iPRT intervention included psychoeducation and relaxation techniques as a way of managing OCD-related anxiety but did not incorporate ERP or other CBT elements. Both treatments included audiovisual content, case stories, demonstrations of techniques, downloadable audio content and worksheets, and expert commentary. All participants received 1 weekly email, with a maximum 15-minute preparation time per client from a remote therapist trained in e-therapy. Emails aimed to monitor progress, provide support and encouragement, and assist in individualizing the treatment. Participants were assessed for baseline and posttreatment OCD severity with the telephone-administered clinician-rated Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and other measures by assessors who were blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS:No pretreatment differences were found between the 2 conditions. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant pre-post improvements in OCD symptom severity for both conditions (P<.001). However, relative to iPRT, iCBT showed significantly greater symptom severity improvement (P=.001); Cohen d for iCBT was 1.05 (95% CI 0.72-1.37), whereas for iPRT it was 0.48 (95% CI 0.22-0.73). The iCBT condition was superior in regard to reliable improvement (25/51, 49% vs 16/55, 29%; P=.04) and clinically significant pre-post-treatment changes (17/51, 33% vs 6/55, 11%; P=.005). Those undertaking iCBT post completion of iPRT showed further significant symptom amelioration (P<.001), although the sequential treatment was no more efficacious than iCBT alone (P=.63). CONCLUSION:This study is the first to compare a therapist-assisted iCBT program for OCD to an analogous active attention control condition using iPRT. Our findings demonstrate the large magnitude effect of iCBT for OCD; interestingly, iPRT was also moderately efficacious, albeit significantly less so than the iCBT intervention. The findings are compared to previous internet-based and face-to-face CBT treatment programs for OCD. Future directions for technology-enhanced programs for the treatment of OCD are outlined. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611000321943; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336704 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70ovUiOmd).

Project description:BackgroundTelephone cognitive-behaviour therapy (TCBT) may be a cost-effective method for improving access to evidence-based treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in young people.AimsEconomic evaluation of TCBT compared with face-to-face CBT for OCD in young people.MethodRandomised non-inferiority trial comparing TCBT with face-to-face CBT for 72 young people (aged 11 to 18) with a diagnosis of OCD. Cost-effectiveness at 12-month follow-up was explored in terms of the primary clinical outcome (Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, CY-BOCS) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (trial registration: ISRCTN27070832).ResultsTotal health and social care costs were higher for face-to-face CBT (mean total cost £2965, s.d. = £1548) than TCBT (mean total cost £2475, s.d. = £1024) but this difference was non-significant (P = 0.118). There were no significant between-group differences in QALYs or the CY-BOCS and there was strong evidence to support the clinical non-inferiority of TCBT. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests a 74% probability that face-to-face CBT is cost-effective compared with TCBT in terms of QALYs, but the result was less clear in terms of CY-BOCS, with TCBT being the preferred option at low levels of willingness to pay and the probability of either intervention being cost-effective at higher levels of willingness to pay being around 50%.ConclusionsAlthough cost-effectiveness of TCBT was sensitive to the outcome measure used, TCBT should be considered a clinically non-inferior alternative when access to standard clinic-based CBT is limited, or when patient preference is expressed.Declaration of interestD.M.-C. reports research grants from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), the Swedish Research Council for Health, working life and welfare (Forte), the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), as well as royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health and Elsevier, all unrelated to the submitted work.

Dataset Information

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness.

Publications

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets