Dataset Information

Brief Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Anxiety and depression affect 30% of youth but are markedly undertreated compared with other mental disorders, especially in Hispanic populations.

Objective

To examine whether a pediatrics-based behavioral intervention targeting anxiety and depression improves clinical outcome compared with referral to outpatient community mental health care.

Design, setting, and participants

This 2-center randomized clinical trial with masked outcome assessment conducted between brief behavioral therapy (BBT) and assisted referral to care (ARC) studied 185 youths (aged 8.0-16.9 years) from 9 pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, recruited from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014. Youths who met DSM-IV criteria for full or probable diagnoses of separation anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, major depression, dysthymic disorder, and/or minor depression; lived with a consenting legal guardian for at least 6 months; and spoke English were included in the study. Exclusions included receipt of alternate treatment for anxiety or depression, presence of a suicidal plan, bipolar disorder, psychosis, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance dependence, current abuse, intellectual disability, or unstable serious physical illness.

Interventions

The BBT consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master's-level clinicians. The ARC families received personalized referrals to mental health care and check-in calls to support accessing care from master's-level coordinators.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was clinically significant improvement on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (score ≤2). Secondary outcomes included the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised, and functioning.

Results

A total of 185 patients were enrolled in the study (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] white; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths in the BBT group (n = 95), compared with those in the ARC group (n = 90), had significantly higher rates of clinical improvement (56.8% vs 28.2%; χ21 = 13.09, P < .001; number needed to treat, 4), greater reductions in symptoms (F2,146 = 5.72; P = .004; Cohen f = 0.28), and better functioning (mean [SD], 68.5 [10.7] vs 61.9 [11.9]; t156 = 3.64; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.58). Ethnicity moderated outcomes, with Hispanic youth having substantially stronger response to BBT (76.5%) than ARC (7.1%) (χ21 = 14.90; P < .001; number needed to treat, 2). Effects were robust across sites.

Conclusions and relevance

A pediatric-based brief behavioral intervention for anxiety and depression is associated with benefits superior to those of assisted referral to outpatient mental health care. Effects were especially strong for Hispanic participants, suggesting that the protocol may be a useful tool in addressing ethnic disparities in care.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01147614.

SUBMITTER: Weersing VR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5539834 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceYouth anxiety and depression are common and undertreated. Pediatric transdiagnostic interventions for anxiety and/or depression may be associated with improved access to treatment among youths.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a pediatric transdiagnostic brief behavioral therapy (BBT) program for anxiety and/or depression compared with assisted referral to community outpatient mental health care (ARC).Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective using data from a randomized clinical trial of youths with full or probable diagnoses of anxiety or depression who were recruited from pediatric clinics in San Diego, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The trial was conducted from October 6, 2010, through December 5, 2014, and this analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, through October 20, 2020.InterventionsIn the randomized clinical trial, youths were randomized to BBT (n = 95) or ARC (n = 90). The BBT program consisted of 8 to 12 weekly 45-minute sessions of behavioral therapy delivered in pediatric clinics by master's-level therapists. Families randomized to ARC received personalized referrals to mental health care and telephone calls to support access to care.Main outcomes and measuresAnxiety-free days, depression-free days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from intake through 32-week follow-up. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for QALYs was used to assess the probability that BBT was cost-effective compared with ARC over a range of amounts that a decision-maker might be willing to pay for an additional outcome.ResultsEnrolled patients included 185 youths (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [2.6] years; 107 [57.8%] female; 144 [77.8%] White; and 38 [20.7%] Hispanic). Youths who received BBT experienced significantly more anxiety-free days (difference, 28.63 days; 95% CI, 5.86-50.71 days; P = .01) and QALYs (difference, 0.026; 95% CI, 0.009-0.046; P = .007) compared with youths who received ARC. Youths who received BBT experienced more depression-free days than did youths who received ARC (difference, 10.52 days; 95% CI, -4.50 to 25.76 days; P = .18), but the difference was not statistically significant. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$41 414 per QALY (95% CI, -$220 601 to $11 468). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis indicated that, at a recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, the probability that BBT would be cost-effective compared with ARC at 32 weeks was 95.6%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, BBT in primary care was significantly associated with better outcomes and a greater probability of cost-effectiveness at 32 weeks compared with ARC. The findings suggest that transdiagnostic BBT may be associated with improved youth anxiety and functioning at a reasonable cost.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have examined the practical effectiveness and implementation potential of brief psychotherapies that integrate mental and physical health.ObjectiveTo determine whether an integrated brief cognitive behavioral therapy (bCBT), delivered by mental health providers in primary care, would improve depression, anxiety and quality of life for medically ill veterans.DesignPragmatic patient-randomized trial comparing bCBT to enhanced usual care (EUC).ParticipantsA total of 302 participants with heart failure and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with elevated symptoms of depression and/or anxiety were enrolled from two Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics.InterventionbCBT was delivered to 180 participants by staff mental health providers (n = 19). bCBT addressed physical and emotional health using a modular, skill-based approach. bCBT was delivered in person or by telephone over 4 months. Participants randomized to EUC (n = 122) received a mental health assessment documented in their medical record.Main measuresPrimary outcomes included depression (Patient Health Questionnaire) and anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life. Assessments occurred at baseline, posttreatment (4 months), and 8- and 12-month follow-up.Key resultsParticipants received, on average, 3.9 bCBT sessions with 63.3% completing treatment (4+ sessions). bCBT improved symptoms of depression (p = 0.004; effect size, d = 0.33) and anxiety (p < 0.001; d = 0.37) relative to EUC at posttreatment, with effects maintained at 8 and 12 months. Health-related quality of life improved posttreatment for bCBT participants with COPD but not for heart failure. Health-related quality of life outcomes were not maintained at 12 months.ConclusionsIntegrated bCBT is acceptable to participants and providers, appears feasible for delivery in primary care settings and is effective for medically ill veterans with depression and anxiety. Improvements for both depression and anxiety were modest but persistent, and the impact on physical health outcomes was limited to shorter-term effects and COPD participants. Clinical trials.Gov identifier: NCT01149772.

Project description:BackgroundPsychiatric inpatients often have limited access to psychotherapeutic education or skills for managing anxiety, a common transdiagnostic concern in severe and acute mental illness. COVID-19-related restrictions further limited access to therapy groups on inpatient psychiatric units. App-based interventions may improve access, but evidence supporting the feasibility of their use, acceptability, and effectiveness in psychiatric inpatient settings is limited. MindShift CBT is a free app based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles with evidence for alleviating anxiety symptoms in the outpatient setting.ObjectiveWe aimed to recruit 24 participants from an acute general psychiatric inpatient ward to a 1-month randomized control study assessing the feasibility and acceptability of providing patients with severe and acute mental illness access to the MindShift CBT app for help with managing anxiety symptoms.MethodsRecruitment, data collection, analysis, and interpretation were completed collaboratively by clinician and peer researchers. Inpatients were randomized to two conditions: treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU plus use of the MindShift CBT app over 6 days. We collected demographic and quantitative data on acceptability and usability of the intervention. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were measured in pre- and poststudy surveys for preliminary signals of efficacy. We conducted individual semistructured interviews with participants in the MindShift CBT app group at the end of their trial period, which were interpreted using a standardized protocol for thematic analysis.ResultsOver 4 weeks, 33 inpatients were referred to the study, 24 consented to participate, 20 were randomized, and 11 completed the study. Of the 9 randomized participants who did not complete the study, 7 were withdrawn because they were discharged or transferred prior to study completion, with a similar distribution among both conditions. Among the enrolled patients, 65% (13/20) were admitted for a psychotic disorder and no patient was admitted primarily for an anxiety disorder. The average length of stay was 20 days (SD 4.4; range 3-21) and 35% (7/20) of patients were involuntarily admitted to hospital. Small sample sizes limited accurate interpretation of the efficacy data. Themes emerging from qualitative interviews included acceptability and usability of the app, and patient agency associated with voluntary participation in research while admitted to hospital.ConclusionsOur study benefitted from collaboration between peer and clinician researchers. Due to rapid patient turnover in the acute inpatient setting, additional flexibility in recruitment and enrollment is needed to determine the efficacy of using app-based psychotherapy on an acute psychiatric ward. Despite the limited sample size, our study suggests that similar interventions may be feasible and acceptable for acutely unwell inpatients. Further study is needed to compare the efficacy of psychotherapeutic apps with existing standards of care in this setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04841603; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04841603.

Project description:ImportanceAnnual preventive health visits provide an opportunity to screen youths for unhealthy substance use and intervene before serious harm results.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability and estimate the efficacy of a primary care computer-facilitated screening and practitioner-delivered brief intervention (CSBI) system compared with usual care (UC) for youth substance use and associated risk of riding with an impaired driver.Design, setting, and participantsAn intent-to-treat pilot randomized clinical trial compared CSBI with UC among 965 youths aged 12 to 18 years at 5 pediatric primary care offices and 54 practitioners. Patients were randomized to CSBI (n = 628) or usual care (n = 243) groups within practitioner with 12 months of follow-up. Data were collected from February 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Data analysis was performed January 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.InterventionsPatients self-administered a computer-facilitated substance use screening questionnaire before their annual preventive health visits. Immediately after completing the screening, they received their score and level of risk and viewed 10 pages of scientific information and true-life vignettes illustrating health risks associated with substance use. Trained practitioners received the screening results, patients' risk levels, talking points designed to prompt brief counseling, and recommended follow-up plans.Main outcomes and measuresFeasibility and acceptability were assessed using adolescents' postvisit ratings. Days of alcohol use, cannabis use, and heavy episodic drinking were assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups using Timeline Followback, and riding in the past 3 months with a driver who was impaired by use of alcohol or other drugs was assessed using 2 self-report items. The primary outcome was the intervention effect among at-risk youths who reported using alcohol or other drugs in the past 12 months or riding with an impaired driver in the past 3 months at baseline. The secondary outcome was the prevention effect among those with no prior use or risk.ResultsAmong 871 youths screened, 869 completed the baseline assessment; 211 of the 869 reported alcohol or cannabis use in the past 12 months at baseline (mean [SD] age, 16.4 [1.3] years; 114 [54.1%] female; 105 [49.8%] non-Hispanic white). Of the 211 youths, 148 (70.1%) were assigned to the CSBI group and 63 (29.9%) were assigned to the UC group. Among youths in the CSBI group, 105 (70.9%) reported receiving counseling about alcohol, 122 (82.4%) reported receiving counseling about cannabis, and 129 (87.2%) reported receiving counseling about not riding with an impaired driver. Adjusted hazard ratios for time to first postvisit use of alcohol or other drugs for CSBI vs UC were as follows: alcohol use, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02); heavy episodic drinking, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40-1.10); and cannabis use, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.94). At 12-month follow-ups among 99 youths who reported having ridden in the past 3 months at baseline with an impaired driver (64 in the CSBI group; 35 in the UC group), adjusted relative risk ratio of riding in the past 3 months with an impaired driver for CSBI vs UC groups was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37-0.91). No intervention effect was observed among youths who reported no prior use of alcohol or other drugs (n = 658) or not having ridden with an impaired driver (n = 769) at baseline.Conclusions and relevanceThe CSBI system is a feasible and acceptable option for screening youths in primary care practice for use of alcohol and other drugs and for risk of riding with an impaired driver, and the estimated efficacy in this sample warrants further testing in larger samples.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00227877.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of evidence-based psychotherapies for depression and anxiety, they are underused in non-mental health specialty settings such as primary care. Hybrid effectiveness-implementation designs have the potential to evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes of evidence-based psychotherapies to improve their translation into routine clinical care practices. METHODS: This protocol article discusses the study methodology and implementation strategies employed in an ongoing, hybrid, type 2 randomized controlled trial with two primary aims: (1) to determine whether a brief, manualized cognitive behavioral therapy administered by Veterans Affairs Primary Care Mental Health Integration program clinicians is effective in treating depression and anxiety in a sample of medically ill (chronic cardiopulmonary diseases) primary care patients and (2) to examine the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary outcomes of a focused implementation strategy on improving adoption and fidelity of brief cognitive behavioral therapy at two Primary Care-Mental Health Integration clinics. The study uses a hybrid type 2 effectiveness/implementation design to simultaneously test clinical effectiveness and to collect pilot data on a multifaceted implementation strategy that includes an online training program, audit and feedback of session content, and internal and external facilitation. Additionally, the study engages the participation of an advisory council consisting of stakeholders from Primary Care-Mental Health Integration, as well as regional and national mental health leaders within the Veterans Administration. It targets recruitment of 320 participants randomized to brief cognitive behavioral therapy (n?=?200) or usual care (n?=?120). Both effectiveness and implementation outcomes are being assessed using mixed methods, including quantitative evaluation (e.g., intent-to-treat analyses across multiple time points) and qualitative methods (e.g., focus interviews and surveys from patients and providers). Patient-effectiveness outcomes include measures of depression, anxiety, and physical health functioning using blinded independent evaluators. Implementation outcomes include patient engagement and adherence and clinician brief cognitive behavioral therapy adoption and fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid designs are needed to advance clinical effectiveness and implementation knowledge to improve healthcare practices. The current article describes the rationale and challenges associated with the use of a hybrid design for the study of brief cognitive behavioral therapy in primary care. Although trade-offs exist between scientific control and external validity, hybrid designs are part of an emerging approach that has the potential to rapidly advance both science and practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01149772 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01149772.