Dataset Information

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Specific 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.

Method

A 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 dissemination

The 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 number

ISRCTN19883421;Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Wright BD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6104754 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

Wright Barry D BD Cooper Cindy C Scott Alexander J AJ Tindall Lucy L Ali Shehzad S Bee Penny P Biggs Katie K Breckman Trilby T Davis Iii Thompson E TE Gega Lina L Hargate Rebecca Julie RJ Lee Ellen E Lovell Karina K Marshall David D McMillan Dean D Teare M Dawn MD Wilson Jonathan J

BMJ open 20180817 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Specific 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 treat ...[more]

PMID: 30121618

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the UK, around 93,000 (0.8%) children and young people (CYP) are experiencing specific phobias that have a substantial impact on daily life. The current gold-standard treatment-multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) - is effective at reducing specific phobia severity; however, CBT is time consuming, requires specialist CBT therapists, and is often at great cost and limited availability. A briefer variant of CBT called one session treatment (OST) has been found to offer similar clinical effectiveness for specific phobia as multi-session CBT. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of OST compared to multi-session CBT for CYP with specific phobias through the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT), a two-arm, pragmatic, multi-centre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.MethodsCYP aged seven to 16 years with specific phobias were recruited nationally via Health and Social Care pathways, remotely randomised to the intervention group (OST) or the control group (CBT-based therapies) and analysed (n = 267). Resource use based on NHS and personal social services perspective and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y were collected at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to capture the uncertainty around the ICER estimates. The results were presented on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses (including taking a societal perspective) were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings.ResultsAfter adjustment and bootstrapping, on average CYP in the OST group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£302.96 (95% CI -£598.86 to -£28.61)) and maintained similar improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.002 (95% CI - 0.004 to 0.008)). The CEAC shows that the probability of OST being cost-effective was over 95% across all the WTP thresholds. Results of a set of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes.ConclusionCompared to CBT, OST produced a reduction in costs and maintained similar improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that OST was highly likely to be cost saving.Trial registrationISRCTN19883421 (30/11/2016).

Project description:Background5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP.MethodsASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months.Results268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT.ConclusionsOne Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Internet based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) has been demonstrated to be cost- and clinically effective. There is a need, however, for increased therapist contact for some patient groups. Combining iCBT with traditional face-to-face (ftf) consultations in a blended format (B-CBT) may produce a new treatment format with multiple benefits from both traditional CBT and iCBT such as individual adaptation, lower costs than traditional therapy, wide geographical and temporal availability, and possibly lower threshold to implementation. The primary aim of the present study is to compare directly the clinical effectiveness of B-CBT with face-to-face CBT for adult major depressive disorder. METHODS/DESIGN:The study is designed as a two arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing blended CBT for adult depression with treatment as usual (TAU). In the blended condition six sessions of ftf CBT is alternated with six to eight online modules (NoDep). TAU is defined as 12 sessions of ftf CBT. The primary outcome is symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Additionally, the study will include an economic evaluation. 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. Participants are randomised on an individual level by a researcher not involved in the project. The primary outcome is analysed by regressing the three-month follow-up PHQ-9 data on the baseline PHQ-9 score and a treatment group indicator using ancova. A sample size of 130 in two balanced groups will yield a power of at least 80% to detect standardised mean differences above 0.5 on a normally distributed variable. DISCUSSION:This study design will compare B-CBT and ftf CBT in a concise and direct manner with only a minimal of the variance explained by differences in therapeutic content. On the other hand, while situated in routine care, ecological validity is somewhat compromised by the controlled manner in which the study is conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02796573 . Registered June 1st 2016. Currently recruiting participants.

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.

Project description:Fatigue is one of the most common and disabling symptoms in end-stage kidney disease, particularly among in-centre haemodialysis patients. This two-arm parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial will determine whether a fully powered efficacy trial is achievable by examining the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability and potential benefits of a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention for fatigue among in-centre haemodialysis patients.We aim to recruit 40 adult patients undergoing in-centre haemodialysis at secondary care outpatient dialysis units, who meet clinical levels of fatigue. Patients will be randomised individually (using a 1:1 ratio) to either a 4-6 weeks' CBT-based intervention (intervention arm) or to a waiting-list control (control arm). The primary feasibility outcomes include descriptive data on numbers within each recruiting centre meeting eligibility criteria, rates of recruitment, numbers retained postrandomisation and treatment adherence. To assess the potential benefits of the cognitive-behavioural therapy for renal fatigue intervention, secondary self-report outcomes include measures of fatigue severity (Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire), fatigue-related functional impairment (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7). Changes in fatigue perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), cognitive and behavioural responses to fatigue (Cognitive and Behavioural Responses to Symptoms Questionnaire), sleep hygiene behaviours (Sleep Hygiene Index) and physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire-short form) will also be explored. These self-report measures will be collected at baseline and 3 months postrandomisation. Nested qualitative interviews will be conducted postintervention to explore the acceptability of the intervention and identify any areas in need of improvement. The statistician and assessor will be blinded to treatment allocation.A National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee approved the study. Any amendments to the protocol will be submitted to the NHS Committee and study sponsor.ISRCTN91238019;Pre-results.

Project description:Self-care training can reduce hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and more intensive intervention may benefit more vulnerable patients, including those with low literacy.A 1-year, multisite, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with 605 patients with HF was conducted. Those randomized to a single session received a 40-minute in-person, literacy-sensitive training; the multisession group received the same initial training and then ongoing telephone-based support. The primary outcome was combined incidence of all-cause hospitalization or death; secondary outcomes included HF-related hospitalization and HF-related quality of life, with prespecified stratification by literacy. Overall, the incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death did not differ between intervention groups (incidence rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22). The effect of multisession training compared with single-session training differed by literacy group: Among those with low literacy, the multisession training yielded a lower incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death (incidence rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.25), and among those with higher literacy, the multisession intervention yielded a higher incidence (incidence rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.50; interaction P=0.048). For HF-related hospitalization, among those with low literacy, multisession training yielded a lower incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.12), and among those with higher literacy, it yielded a higher incidence (incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.88; interaction P=0.005). HF-related quality of life improved more for patients receiving multisession than for those receiving single-session interventions at 1 and 6 months, but the difference at 12 months was smaller. Effects on HF-related quality of life did not differ by literacy.Overall, an intensive multisession intervention did not change clinical outcomes compared with a single-session intervention. People with low literacy appear to benefit more from multisession interventions than people with higher literacy.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00378950.

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.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety disorders are highly prevalent and cause substantial economic burden. Blended cognitive-behavioural therapy (bCBT), which integrates Internet-based CBT and face-to-face CBT (ftfCBT), is an attractive and potentially cost-saving treatment alternative to conventional CBT for patients with anxiety disorders in specialised mental health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of bCBT in routine care. We examined the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bCBT versus ftfCBT in outpatient specialised care to patients with panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and generalised anxiety disorder.Methods and findingsPatients with anxiety disorders were randomised to bCBT (n = 52) or ftfCBT (n = 62). Acceptability of bCBT and ftfCBT were evaluated by assessing treatment preference, adherence, satisfaction and therapeutic alliance. Costs and effects were assessed at post-treatment and one-year follow-up. Primary outcome measure was the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, general psychopathology, work and social adjustment, quality of life and mastery. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed from societal and healthcare perspectives by calculating the incremental costs per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). No significant differences between bCBT and ftfCBT were found on acceptability or effectiveness measures at post-treatment (Cohen's d between-group effect size on BAI = 0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.60) or at one-year follow-up (d = -0.38, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.09). The modelled point estimates of societal costs (bCBT €10945, ftfCBT €10937) were higher and modelled point estimates of direct medical costs (bCBT €3748, ftfCBT €3841) were lower in bCBT. The acceptability curves showed that bCBT was expected to be a cost-effective intervention. Results should be carefully interpreted due to the small sample size.ConclusionsbCBT appears an acceptable, clinically effective and potentially cost-saving alternative option for treating patients with anxiety disorders. Trials with larger samples are needed to further investigate cost-effectiveness.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register: NTR4912.

Dataset Information

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

Introduction

Method

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets