Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a brief psychotherapeutic intervention compared with treatment as usual for adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Although nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a clinically significant behavior, evidence-based, specific, time-, and cost-effective treatment approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of a brief cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy manual, the Cutting Down Programme (CDP), and treatment as usual (TAU) in the treatment of adolescent NSSI. We conducted a single-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants were aged 12-17 years engaging in repetitive NSSI (at least 5 times within the past 6 months). We randomly allocated 74 participants to CDP (n?=?37) or TAU (n?=?37; in a 1:1 ratio). Outcome measures were administered before treatment (T0), directly after CDP or 4 months after baseline evaluation in the TAU group (T1), and another 6 months later (T2; primary endpoint). Primary outcome was a 50% reduction in NSSI frequency within the past 6 months at 10-month follow-up (T2). Regarding the primary outcome, there were no significant differences between the CDP (n?=?26; 70.3%) and TAU group [n?=?27; 73.0%; ?²(1)?=?0.07; p?=?0.797]; NSSI frequency within the past 6 months was significantly reduced at T2 [?²(1)?=?12.45; p?2(1)?=?0.14; p?=?0.704]. However, we found a significant group x point of measurement interaction [?²(2)?=?7.78; p?=?0.021] regarding NSSI within the last month indicating at T1. CDP was equally effective and achieved faster recovery compared to a significantly more intensive TAU in treating adolescent NSSI. The CDP could provide a brief and pragmatic first treatment within a stepped-care model for NSSI in routine clinical care.Clinical Trial Registration The trial was prospectively registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials (https://www.drks.de; DRKS00003605) and is now complete.

SUBMITTER: Kaess M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7305262 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a brief psychotherapeutic intervention compared with treatment as usual for adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

Kaess Michael M Kaess Michael M Edinger Alexandra A Fischer-Waldschmidt Gloria G Parzer Peter P Brunner Romuald R Resch Franz F

European child & adolescent psychiatry 20190911 6

Although nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a clinically significant behavior, evidence-based, specific, time-, and cost-effective treatment approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of a brief cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy manual, the Cutting Down Programme (CDP), and treatment as usual (TAU) in the treatment of adolescent NSSI. We conducted a single-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants were aged 12-17 years engaging in repetitive ...[more]

PMID: 31512050

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with "usual" physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome. DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation. SETTING: Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. PARTICIPANTS: 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P = 0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.

Project description:IntroductionServices are being encouraged to provide postdiagnostic treatment to those with dementia but the availability of evidence-based interventions following diagnosis has not kept pace with increase in demand. To address this need, the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention was created. A randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress.Methods and analysisThe RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group trial designed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of JtD compared with usual care. Recruitment will be through NHS services, third sector organisations and Join Dementia Research. The sample size is 486 randomised (243 to usual care and 243 to the intervention usual care). Participants can choose to ask a friend or relative (supporter) to become involved in the study. The primary outcome measure for participants is Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), collected at baseline and at 8 months' postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be collected from participants and supporters at those visits. Participants will also be followed up at 12 months' postrandomisation with a reduced set of measures. A process evaluation will be conducted through qualitative and fidelity substudies. Analyses will compare the two arms of the trial on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analyses will compare the mean DEMQOL scores of the participants at 8 months between the two study arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis will consider the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years of the intervention compared with usual care. Qualitative and fidelity substudies will be analysed through framework analysis and fidelity assessment tools respectively.Ethics and disseminationREC and HRA approval were obtained. A Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee has been constituted. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. Intervention materials will be made open access.Trial registration numberISRCTN17993825.

Project description:BackgroundMental health problems are a leading cause of disability in adolescents worldwide. Problem solving is a well-tested mental health intervention in many populations. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a brief, transdiagnostic problem-solving intervention for common adolescent mental health problems when delivered by non-specialist school counsellors in New Delhi, India.MethodsThis randomised trial was done in six government-run schools (three all-boys schools, two all-girls schools, and one co-educational school) that serve low-income communities. We recruited participants from grades 9 to 12 (ages 12-20 years) by selecting students with persistently elevated mental health symptoms accompanied by distress or functional impairment. Clinical eligibility criteria were assessed by research assistants using the Hindi-language version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), with reference to locally validated borderline cutoff scores of 19 or greater for boys and 20 or greater for girls on the SDQ Total Difficulties scale, an abnormal score of 2 or more on the SDQ Impact scale, and persistence of more than 1 month on the SDQ Chronicity index. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to problem solving delivered through a brief (2-3 week) counsellor-led intervention with supporting printed materials (intervention group), or problem solving delivered via printed booklets alone (control group). Primary outcomes were adolescent-reported mental health symptoms (SDQ Total Difficulties scale) and idiographic psychosocial problems (Youth Top Problems [YTP]) at 6 weeks. Primary analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis at the 6-week endpoint. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03630471.FindingsParticipants were enrolled between Aug 20, and Dec 4, 2018. 283 eligible adolescents were referred to the trial, and 251 (89%) of these were enrolled (mean age 15·61 years; 174 [69%] boys). 125 participants were allocated to each group (after accounting for one participant in the intervention group who withdrew consent after randomisation). Primary outcome data were available for 245 (98%) participants. At 6 weeks, the mean YTP scores were 3·52 (SD 2·66) in the intervention group and 4·60 (2·75) in the control group (adjusted mean difference -1·01, 95% CI -1·63 to -0·38; adjusted effect size 0·36, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·61; p=0·0015). The mean SDQ Total Difficulties scores were 17·48 (5·45) in the intervention group and 18·33 (5·45) in the control group (-0·86, -2·14 to 0·41; 0·16, -0·09 to 0·41; p=0·18). We observed no adverse events.InterpretationA brief lay counsellor-delivered problem-solving intervention combined with printed booklets seemed to have a modest effect on psychosocial outcomes among adolescents with diverse mental health problems compared with problem-solving booklets alone. This counsellor-delivered intervention might be a suitable first-line intervention in a stepped care approach, which is being evaluated in ongoing studies.FundingWellcome Trust.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To test the effectiveness of a brief behavioural intervention to prevent weight gain over the Christmas holiday period. DESIGN:Two group, double blinded randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Recruitment from workplaces, social media platforms, and schools pre-Christmas 2016 and 2017 in Birmingham, UK. PARTICIPANTS:272 adults aged 18 years or more with a body mass index of 20 or more: 136 were randomised to a brief behavioural intervention and 136 to a leaflet on healthy living (comparator). Baseline assessments were conducted in November and December with follow-up assessments in January and February (4-8 weeks after baseline). INTERVENTIONS:The intervention aimed to increase restraint of eating and drinking through regular self weighing and recording of weight and reflection on weight trajectory; providing information on good weight management strategies over the Christmas period; and pictorial information on the physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) of regularly consumed festive foods and drinks. The goal was to gain no more than 0.5 kg of baseline weight. The comparator group received a leaflet on healthy living. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was weight at follow-up. The primary analysis compared weight at follow-up between the intervention and comparator arms, adjusting for baseline weight and the stratification variable of attendance at a commercial weight loss programme. Secondary outcomes (recorded at follow-up) were: weight gain of 0.5 kg or less, self reported frequency of self weighing (at least twice weekly versus less than twice weekly), percentage body fat, and cognitive restraint of eating, emotional eating, and uncontrolled eating. RESULTS:Mean weight change was -0.13 kg (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.15) in the intervention group and 0.37 kg (0.12 to 0.62) in the comparator group. The adjusted mean difference in weight (intervention-comparator) was -0.49 kg (95% confidence interval -0.85 to -0.13, P=0.008). The odds ratio for gaining no more than 0.5 kg was non-significant (1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 2.00, P=0.44). CONCLUSION:A brief behavioural intervention involving regular self weighing, weight management advice, and information about the amount of physical activity required to expend the calories in festive foods and drinks prevented weight gain over the Christmas holiday period. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15071781.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a brief psychotherapeutic intervention compared with treatment as usual for adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Effectiveness of a brief psychotherapeutic intervention compared with treatment as usual for adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets