Dataset Information

Brief Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care: A Follow-up.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To report on the 32-week outcome of the Brief Behavioral Therapy (BBT) for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care clinical trial.

Method

A total of 185 youths aged 8 to 17 years with anxiety and/or depression identified through 9 pediatric primary care (PPC) settings in San Diego and Pittsburgh were randomized to receive Assisted Referral to Care (ARC) or up to 12 sessions of BBT over 16 weeks. The primary outcome was clinical response across anxiety and depression, defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Score of ≤2. Secondary outcomes included interview-rated functioning, depression, and anxiety. Here, we report on outcomes at 32 weeks after randomization. All analyses with primary outcomes are corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate procedure.

Results

At 32 weeks, BBT was superior to ARC with respect to response (67.5% versus 43.1%, q = 0.03, number needed to treat [NNT] = 5) and functioning (d = 0.49, q = 0.04). BBT was superior to ARC with respect to its impact on anxiety (f = 0.21) but not depressive symptoms (f = 0.05). These findings persisted after controlling for the number of sessions received. Ethnicity moderated the impact of BBT on outcome (NNT for Hispanic youths = 2), because of a much lower response rate to ARC in Hispanic than in non-Hispanic youths (16.7% versus 49.2%, p = 0.04).

Conclusion

BBT is a promising intervention that can be effectively delivered in PPC and may be particularly effective for Hispanic patients. Further work is indicated to improve its impact on depressive symptoms and to test BBT against other treatments delivered in pediatric primary care.

Clinical trial registration information

Brief Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Pediatric Anxiety and Depression in Primary Care; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01147614.

SUBMITTER: Brent DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6940557 | 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:ImportanceAnxiety and depression affect 30% of youth but are markedly undertreated compared with other mental disorders, especially in Hispanic populations.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.InterventionsThe 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceA 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01147614.

Project description:BackgroundThe U-CARE Heart trial was one of the first randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy on self-reported symptoms of anxiety or depression for patients with a recent myocardial infarction. While the effects of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores at 14 weeks postbaseline were not significant, in this study, we investigated possible long-term effects of treatment.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy on self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients 12 months after a myocardial infarction and to explore subsequent occurrences of cardiovascular disease events.MethodsShortly after acute myocardial infarction, 239 patients (33% female, mean age 59.6 years) reporting mild-to-moderate symptoms of anxiety or depression were randomized to 14 weeks of therapist-guided internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (n=117) or treatment as usual (n=122). Data from national registries were used to explore group differences in clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular-related mortality for a follow-up period of up to 5 years: group differences in HADS total score 1 year post-myocardial infarction, the primary outcome, was analyzed using multiple linear regression. Secondary outcomes, such as HADS anxiety and depression subscales and the Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire total score (CAQ), which measures heart-focused anxiety, were analyzed in the same way. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data, and a pooled treatment effect was estimated. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for data pertaining to registry outcomes.ResultsBoth groups reported lower HADS total scores 1 year after myocardial infarction than those at baseline. HADS total scores were not significantly different between the treatment and control groups 1 year after myocardial infarction (β=-1.14, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.45, P=.16). CAQ was the only measure improved significantly by internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy when compared with treatment as usual (β=-2.58, 95% CI -4.75 to -0.42, P=.02) before adjusting for multiple comparisons. The composite outcome of nonfatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular-related mortality did not differ between groups but was numerically higher in the internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy group, who were at slightly greater risk (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.4, P=.07). Adjusting for previous myocardial infarction and diabetes attenuated this estimate (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.8, P=.25).ConclusionsInternet-based cognitive behavioral therapy was not superior in reducing self-reported symptoms of depression or anxiety compared to treatment as usual at the 1-year follow-up after myocardial infarction. A reduction in cardiac-related anxiety was observed but was not significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular events between the treatment groups. Low treatment adherence, which might have affected treatment engagement and outcomes, should be considered when interpreting these results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01504191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01504191.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s13063-015-0689-y.

Project description:Background: Depression is a highly prevalent mental disorder, but only a fraction of those affected receive evidence-based treatments. Recently, Internet-based interventions were introduced as an efficacious and cost-effective approach. However, even though depression is a heterogenous construct, effects of treatments have mostly been determined using aggregated symptom scores. This carries the risk of concealing important effects and working mechanisms of those treatments. Methods: In this study, we analyze outcome and long-term follow-up data from the EVIDENT study, a large (N = 1,013) randomized-controlled trial comparing an Internet intervention for depression (Deprexis) with care as usual. We use Network Intervention Analysis to examine the symptom-specific effects of the intervention. Using data from intermediary and long-term assessments that have been conducted over 36 months, we intend to reveal how the treatment effects unfold sequentially and are maintained. Results: Item-level analysis showed that scale-level effects can be explained by small item-level effects on most depressive symptoms at all points of assessment. Higher scores on these items at baseline predicted overall symptom reduction throughout the whole assessment period. Network intervention analysis offered insights into potential working mechanisms: while deprexis directly affected certain symptoms of depression (e.g., worthlessness and fatigue) and certain aspects of the quality of life (e.g., overall impairment through emotional problems), other domains were affected indirectly (e.g., depressed mood and concentration as well as activity level). The configuration of direct and indirect effects replicates previous findings from another study examining the same intervention. Conclusions: Internet interventions for depression are not only effective in the short term, but also exert long-term effects. Their effects are likely to affect only a small subset of problems. Patients reporting these problems are likely to benefit more from the intervention. Future studies on online interventions should examine symptom-specific effects as they potentially reveal the potential of treatment tailoring. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02178631.

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.