Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Guided Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy vs Face-to-Face Clinical Care for Treatment of Tinnitus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Accessible clinical care is not always available to individuals with distressing tinnitus. Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy has the potential to increase access to evidence-based services that manage tinnitus. Research comparing the effectiveness of this internet-based intervention with face-to-face care is required.

Objective

To evaluate whether an internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention is at least as effective as established individualized face-to-face clinical care in reducing tinnitus distress and tinnitus-related difficulties.

Design, setting, and participants

A randomized, multicenter, 2-arm parallel group, noninferiority trial with 2-month follow-up was performed between October 4, 2016, and July 14, 2017. Invited to participate were 374 adults based in the United Kingdom who had been referred to their local tinnitus clinics because of bothersome tinnitus. The experimental group received the internet-based intervention online, and the active control group underwent the usual face-to-face tinnitus care at 1 of 3 UK-based National Health Service hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either intervention using variable permuted block sizes of 4 and 6. Of 92 participants who were randomized (46 each in the experimental and control groups), 88 participants completed the assessment immediately after intervention and 74 participants completed the follow-up assessment.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive either 8 weeks of guided internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy or a mean of 2 to 3 individualized face-to-face appointments in a tinnitus clinic.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was a change in tinnitus distress (assessed by the Tinnitus Functional Index). Secondary assessment measures were included for insomnia, anxiety, depression, hearing disability, hyperacusis, cognitive failures, and satisfaction with life.

Results

Of 92 patients overall, 55 (60%) were men with a mean (SD) age of 52.96 (12.07) years and mean (SD) tinnitus duration of 6.54 (9.25) years. The between-group difference in the Tinnitus Functional Index scores after intervention were 5.18 (95% CI, -4.17 to 14.53) at the initial assessment and 5.52 (95% CI, -4.60 to 15.61) at follow-up; both differences were within the noninferiority margin of 13 points for the lower 95% CI. For the secondary outcomes, only outcomes for insomnia fell outside the noninferiority margin, both after intervention and at follow-up, favoring internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy.

Conclusions and relevance

This is the first trial, to our knowledge, to compare an internet-based intervention with standard individualized face-to-face care for tinnitus. It revealed that both interventions are equally effective for reducing tinnitus distress and most tinnitus-related difficulties.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02665975.

SUBMITTER: Beukes EW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTinnitus is a symptom that can be very distressing owing to hearing sounds not related to any external sound source. Managing tinnitus is notoriously difficult, and access to evidence-based care is limited. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a tinnitus management strategy with the most evidence of effectiveness but is rarely offered to those distressed by tinnitus. The provision of internet-based CBT for tinnitus overcomes accessibility barriers; however, it is not currently readily available in the United States.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of internet-based CBT compared with that of weekly monitoring for the management of tinnitus in reducing tinnitus distress; reducing tinnitus-related comorbidities, including tinnitus cognitions, insomnia, anxiety, and depression; and assessing the stability of the intervention effects 2 months after the intervention.MethodsA 2-arm randomized clinical trial comparing audiologist-guided internet-based CBT (n=79) to a weekly monitoring group (n=79) with a 2-month follow-up assessed the efficacy of internet-based CBT. Eligible participants included adults seeking help for tinnitus. Recruitment was conducted on the web using an open-access website. Participants were randomized via 1:1 allocation, but blinding was not possible. The study was undertaken by English or Spanish speakers on the web. The primary outcome was a change in tinnitus distress as measured using the Tinnitus Functional Index. Secondary outcome measures included anxiety, depression, insomnia, tinnitus cognition, hearing-related difficulties, and quality of life.ResultsInternet-based CBT led to a greater reduction in tinnitus distress (mean 36.57, SD 22) compared with that in weekly monitoring (mean 46.31, SD 20.63; effect size: Cohen d=0.46, 95% CI 0.14-0.77) using an intention-to-treat analysis. For the secondary outcomes, there was a greater reduction in negative tinnitus cognition and insomnia. The results remained stable over the 2-month follow-up period. No important adverse events were observed. Further, 16% (10/158) of participants withdrew, with low overall compliance rates for questionnaire completion of 72.3% (107/148) at T1, 61% (91/148) at T2, and 42% (62/148) at T3.ConclusionsThis study is the first to evaluate and indicate the efficacy of audiologist-delivered internet-based CBT in reducing tinnitus distress in a US population. It was also the first study to offer internet-based CBT in Spanish to accommodate the large Hispanic population in the United States. The results have been encouraging, and further work is indicated in view of making such an intervention applicable to a wider population. Further work is required to improve compliance and attract more Spanish speakers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04004260; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04004260.

Project description:ImportanceCognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a highly specialized treatment that is in short supply worldwide.ObjectivesTo investigate whether both therapist-guided and unguided internet-based CBT (ICBT) are noninferior to face-to-face CBT for adults with OCD, to conduct a health economic evaluation, and to determine whether treatment effects were moderated by source of participant referral.Design, setting, and participantsThis study is a single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial, with a full health economic evaluation, conducted between September 2015 and January 2020, comparing therapist-guided ICBT, unguided ICBT, and individual face-to-face CBT for adults with OCD. Follow-up data were collected up to 12 months after treatment. The study was conducted at 2 specialist outpatient OCD clinics in Stockholm, Sweden. Participants included a consecutive sample of adults with a primary diagnosis of OCD, either self-referred or referred by a clinician. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to January 2022.InterventionsGuided ICBT, unguided ICBT, and face-to-face CBT delivered over 14 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the change in OCD symptom severity from baseline to 3-month follow-up. The noninferiority margin was 3 points on the masked assessor-rated Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale.ResultsA total of 120 participants were enrolled (80 women [67%]; mean [SD] age, 32.24 [9.64] years); 38 were randomized to the face-to-face CBT group, 42 were randomized to the guided ICBT group, and 40 were randomized to the unguided ICBT group. The mean difference between therapist-guided ICBT and face-to-face CBT at the primary end point was 2.10 points on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (90% CI, -0.41 to 4.61 points; P = .17), favoring face-to-face CBT, meaning that the primary noninferiority results were inconclusive. The difference between unguided ICBT and face-to-face CBT was 5.35 points (90% CI, 2.76 to 7.94 points; P < .001), favoring face-to-face CBT. The health economic analysis showed that both guided and unguided ICBT were cost-effective compared with face-to-face CBT. Source of referral did not moderate treatment outcome. The most common adverse events were anxiety (30 participants [25%]), depressive symptoms (20 participants [17%]), and stress (11 participants [9%]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this randomized clinical trial of ICBT vs face-to-face CBT for adults with OCD do not conclusively demonstrate noninferiority. Therapist-guided ICBT could be a cost-effective alternative to in-clinic CBT for adults with OCD in scenarios where traditional CBT is not readily available; unguided ICBT is probably less efficacious but could be an alternative when providing remote clinician support is not feasible.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02541968.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder is a chronic condition; its prevalence is expected to grow with the aging trend of high-income countries. Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy has proven efficacy in treating major depressive disorder.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of implementing a community internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention (Super@, the Spanish program for the MasterMind project) for treating major depressive disorder.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of the Super@ program was assessed with the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing tool, using a 3-state Markov model. Data from the cost and effectiveness of the intervention were prospectively collected from the implementation of the program by a health care provider in Badalona, Spain; the corresponding data for usual care were gathered from the literature. The health states, transition probabilities, and utilities were computed using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores.ResultsThe analysis was performed using data from 229 participants using the Super@ program. Results showed that the intervention was more costly than usual care; the discounted (3%) and nondiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were €29,367 and €26,484 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively (approximately US $35,299 and $31,833, respectively). The intervention was cost-effective based on the €30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold typically applied in Spain (equivalent to approximately $36,060). According to the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the potential reduction of costs associated with intervention scale-up would reduce the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the intervention, although it remained more costly than usual care. A discount in the incremental effects up to 5% exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000.ConclusionsThe Super@ program, an internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention for treating major depressive disorder, cost more than treatment as usual. Nevertheless, its implementation in Spain would be cost-effective from health care and societal perspectives, given the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 compared with treatment as usual.

Project description:ImportanceSocial anxiety disorder (SAD) is a prevalent childhood-onset disorder associated with lifelong adversity and high costs for the individual and society at large. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an established evidence-based treatment for SAD, but its availability is limited.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of therapist-guided internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) for SAD in youths vs an active comparator, internet-delivered supportive therapy (ISUPPORT).Design, setting, and participantsThis single-masked, superiority randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at a clinical research unit integrated within the child and adolescent mental health services in Stockholm, Sweden, from September 1, 2017, to October 31, 2018. The final participant reached the 3-month follow-up (primary end point) in May 2019. Children and adolescents 10 to 17 years of age with a principal diagnosis of SAD and their parents were included in the study.InterventionsICBT and ISUPPORT, both including 10 online modules, 5 separate parental modules, and 3 video call sessions with a therapist.Main outcomes and measuresThe Clinician Severity Rating (CSR), derived from the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, rated by masked assessors 3 months after the end of treatment. The CSR ranges from 0 to 8, with scores of 4 or higher indicating caseness. Secondary outcomes included masked assessor-rated diagnostic status of SAD and global functioning, child- and parent-reported social anxiety and depressive symptoms, and health-related costs.ResultsOf the 307 youths assessed for eligibility, 103 were randomized to 10 weeks of therapist-guided ICBT (n = 51) or therapist-guided ISUPPORT (n = 52) for SAD. The sample consisted of 103 youths (mean [SD] age, 14.1 [2.1] years; 79 [77%] female). Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy was significantly more efficacious than ISUPPORT in reducing the severity of SAD symptoms. Mean (SD) CSR scores for ICBT at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up were 5.06 (0.95) and 3.96 (1.46), respectively, compared with 4.94 (0.94) and 4.48 (1.30) for ISUPPORT. There was a significant between-group effect size of d = 0.67 (95% CI, 0.21-1.12) at the 3-month follow-up. Similarly, all of the secondary outcome measures demonstrated significant differences with small to large effect sizes, except for child-rated quality of life (nonsignificant). The cost-effectiveness analyses indicated cost savings associated with ICBT compared with ISUPPORT, with the main drivers of the savings being lower medication costs (z = 2.38, P = .02) and increased school productivity (z = 1.99, P = .047) in the ICBT group. There was 1 suicide attempt in the ISUPPORT group; no other serious adverse events occurred in either group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy was an efficacious and cost-effective intervention for children and adolescents with SAD. Implementation in clinical practice could markedly increase the availability of effective interventions for SAD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03247075.

Project description:ImportanceHealth anxiety is a common and often chronic mental health problem associated with distress, substantial costs, and frequent attendance throughout the health care system. Face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is the criterion standard treatment, but access is limited.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that internet-delivered CBT, which requires relatively little resources, is noninferior to face-to-face CBT in the treatment of health anxiety.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized noninferiority clinical trial with health economic analysis was based at a primary care clinic and included patients with a principal diagnosis of health anxiety who were self-referred or referred from routine care. Recruitment began in December 10, 2014, and the last treatment ended on July 23, 2017. Follow-up data were collected up to 12 months after treatment. Analysis began October 2017 and ended March 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized (1:1) to 12 weeks of internet-delivered CBT or to individual face-to-face CBT.Main outcomes and measuresChange in health anxiety symptoms from baseline to week 12. Analyses were conducted from intention-to-treat and per-protocol (completers only) perspectives, using the noninferiority margin of 2.25 points on the Health Anxiety Inventory, which has a theoretical range of 0 to 54.ResultsOverall, 204 patients (mean [SD] age, 39 [12] years; 143 women [70%]) contributed with 2386 data points on the Health Anxiety Inventory over the treatment period. Of 204 patients, 102 (50%) were randomized to internet-delivered CBT, and 102 (50%) were randomized to face-to-face CBT. The 1-sided 95% CI upper limits for the internet-delivered CBT vs face-to-face CBT difference in change were within the noninferiority margin in the intention-to-treat analysis (B = 0.00; upper limit: 1.98; Cohen d = 0.00; upper limit: 0.23) and per-protocol analysis (B = 0.01; upper limit: 2.17; Cohen d = 0.00; upper limit: 0.25). The between-group effect was not moderated by initial symptom level, recruitment path, or patient treatment preference. Therapists spent 10.0 minutes per patient per week in the online treatment vs 45.6 minutes for face-to-face CBT. The net societal cost was lower in the online treatment (treatment period point difference: $3854). There was no significant group difference in the number of adverse events, and no serious adverse event was reported.Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, internet-delivered CBT appeared to be noninferior to face-to-face CBT for health anxiety, while incurring lower net societal costs. The online treatment format has potential to increase access to evidence-based treatment for health anxiety.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02314065.

Project description:BackgroundInternet-based cognitive behavioral 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 may produce a new treatment format (B-CBT) 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.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study is to compare directly the clinical effectiveness of B-CBT with FtF-CBT for adult major depressive disorder.MethodsA 2-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial compared B-CBT for adult depression with treatment as usual (TAU). The trial was researcher blinded (unblinded for participants and clinicians). B-CBT comprised 6 sessions of FtF-CBT alternated with 6-8 web-based CBT self-help modules. TAU comprised 12 sessions of FtF-CBT. All participants were aged 18 or older and met the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder and were recruited via a national iCBT clinic. The primary outcome was change in depression severity on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary analyses included client satisfaction (8-item Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [CSQ-8]), patient expectancy (Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire [CEQ]), and working (Working Alliance Inventory [WAI] and Technical Alliance Inventory [TAI]). The primary outcome was analyzed by a mixed effects model including all available data from baseline, weekly measures, 3-, 6, and 12-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 76 individuals were randomized, with 38 allocated to each treatment group. Age ranged from 18 to 71 years (SD 13.96) with 56 (74%) females. Attrition rate was 20% (n=15), which was less in the FtF-CBT group (n=6, 16%) than in the B-CBT group (n=9, 24%). As many as 53 (70%) completed 9 or more sessions almost equally distributed between the groups (nFtF-CBT=27, 71%; nB-CBT=26, 68%). PHQ-9 reduced 11.38 points in the FtF-CBT group and 8.10 in the B-CBT group. At 6 months, the mean difference was a mere 0.17 points. The primary analyses confirmed large and significant within-group reductions in both groups (FtF-CBT: β=-.03; standard error [SE] 0.00; P<.001 and B-CBT: β=-.02; SE 0.00; P<.001). A small but significant interaction effect was observed between groups (β=.01; SE 0.00; P=.03). Employment status influenced the outcome differently between groups, where the B-CBT group was seen to profit more from not being full-time employed than the FtF group.ConclusionsWith large within-group effects in both treatment arms, the study demonstrated feasibility of B-CBT in Denmark. At 6 months' follow-up, there appeared to be no difference between the 2 treatment formats, with a small but nonsignificant difference at 12 months. The study seems to demonstrate that B-CBT is capable of producing treatment effects that are close to FtF-CBT and that completion rates and satisfaction rates were comparable between groups. However, the study was limited by small sample size and should be interpreted with caution.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02796573; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02796573.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s12888-016-1140-y.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcomes 1 year after undertaking an audiologist-guided Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) intervention for tinnitus. Secondary aims were to identify any predictors of outcome and whether there were any unwanted events related to undertaking iCBT for tinnitus.MethodParticipants who had previously undertaken a randomized iCBT efficacy trial for tinnitus were invited to participate. Of the 146 who were initially randomized for the efficacy trial, 104 participants completed the 1-year postintervention assessment measures. The primary outcome was a change in tinnitus distress as assessed by the Tinnitus Functional Index. Secondary assessment measures were included for insomnia, anxiety, depression, hearing handicap, hyperacusis, cognitive failures, and satisfaction with life. An intention-to-treat analysis using repeated-measures analysis of variance and hierarchical multiple regression was used for statistical analysis. Unwanted effects were categorized according to the unwanted events checklist.ResultsUndertaking iCBT for tinnitus led to significant improvements 1 year postintervention for tinnitus and related difficulties, for example, insomnia, anxiety, depression, hearing handicap, hyperacusis, and life satisfaction. The best predictors of improving tinnitus severity at 1-year postintervention were greater baseline tinnitus severity scores, reading more of the modules, and higher satisfaction with the intervention. Unwanted events were reported by 11% of the participants and were more likely to be reported by women than men. These events were related to worsening of symptoms, the emergence of new symptoms, negative well-being, and prolongation of treatment.ConclusionsThe clinical benefits of audiologist-guided iCBT for tinnitus and tinnitus-related difficulties were sustained 1 year postintervention. Predictors of outcome indicated that the intervention is applicable to a wide range of participants regardless of their demographic backgrounds. Attempts should be made to minimize unwanted events in subsequent trials.

Project description:Although 13-20% of American adolescents experience a depressive episode annually, no scalable primary care model for adolescent depression prevention is currently available. To study whether CATCH-IT (Competent Adulthood Transition with Cognitive Behavioral Humanistic and Interpersonal Training) reduces the hazard for depression in at-risk adolescents identified in primary care, as compared to a general health education attention control (HE). The Promoting AdolescenT Health (PATH) study compares CATCH-IT and HE in a phase 3 single-blind multicenter randomized attention control trial. Participants were enrolled from 2012 to 2016 and assessed at 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-randomization. Primary care. Eligible adolescents were 13-18 years with subsyndromal depression and/or history of depression and no current depression diagnosis or treatment. Of 2,250 adolescents screened for eligibility, 446 participants completed the baseline interview and 369 were randomized into CATCH-IT (n=193) and HE (n=176). CATCH-IT is a 20-module (15 adolescent modules, 5 parent modules) online psychoeducation course that includes a parent program, supported by three motivational interviews. Time-to-event for depressive episode; depressive symptoms at 6 months. Mean age was 15.4 years, and 68% were female; 28% had both a past episode and subsyndromal depression; 12% had a past episode only, 59% had subsyndromal depression only, and 1% had borderline subsyndromal depression. The outcome of time-to-event favored CATCH-IT but was not significant with intention-to-treat analyses (N=369; unadjusted HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.27, 1.29; p=0.18; adjusted HR=0.53; 95% CI 0.23, 1.23, p=0.14). Adolescents with higher baseline CES-D10 scores showed a significantly stronger effect of CATCH-IT on time-to-event relative to those with lower baseline scores (p=0.04). For example, for a CES-D10 score of 15 (significant sub-syndromal depression), HR=0.20 (95% CI 0.05, 0.77), compared to CES-D10 of 5 (no sub-syndromal depression), HR=1.44 (95% CI, 0.41, 5.03). In both CATCH-IT and HE groups, depression symptoms declined and functional scores increased. CATCH-IT may be better than HE for preventing depressive episodes for at-risk adolescents with sub-syndromal depression. CATCH-IT may be a scalable approach to prevent depressive episodes in adolescents in primary care.