Dataset Information

The working alliance in blended versus face-to-face cognitive therapy for depression: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

We explored the working alliance as measured by both clients and therapists. The working alliance has been known to predict the outcome of psychotherapy and is often considered an important common factor. This study raised the question of how to conceptualize the working alliance in the blended format.

Methods

This was an exploratory study derived from a randomized controlled trial comparing bCBT and face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy (ftf CBT) on depression. The change in depressive symptoms was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the working alliance was measured using the Working Alliance Inventory.

Analyses

Correlation coefficients were calculated for the working alliance as reported by clients and therapists, working alliance was then examined at item and dimension level (task, bond, goal). Linear regression models were applied to investigate the predictive value of the working alliance on treatment outcome. Interaction between the level of working alliance and treatment condition was also considered.

Results

Client and therapist working alliance ratings correlated at r = 0.44 and clients rated the working alliance higher than therapists (x̄ _clients = 48.6, x̄ _therapists = 44.6). ftf CBT and bCBT had comparable joint working alliance ratings (x̄ _ftf = 46.4, x̄ _bCBT = 46.8). Items had little deviation apart from item 4 with high positive values. The level of working alliance from the total sample did not significantly predict outcome based on the client's perspective. Contrarily, seen from the therapist's perspective, it did (b = 0.00, p = .044). Using the mean from these predictors as a composite variable, was also significant (b = 0.00, p = .039, R² _adj = 0.07). There was no significant interaction with treatment condition.

Discussion

Clients and therapists may lay emphasis on different aspects of the working alliance. The finding that therapist-rated working alliance was better than client working alliance at predicting outcome went against common findings; this pattern may be specific to bCBT.

Conclusion

Clients rated the working alliance slightly higher than therapists on average. Clients and therapists as well as treatment conditions had different profiles on dimension deviations. Therapist ratings of the working alliance appeared to better predict treatment outcome than client ratings. Joint working alliance predicted outcome using client and therapist composite means. The working alliance was equally strong in ftf CBT and bCBT. The absence of interaction with treatment condition indicated that the working alliance was equally predictive of outcome in ftf CBT as in bCBT.

SUBMITTER: Askjer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8350587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Meta-analyses of several randomized controlled trials have shown that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has comparable efficacy to antidepressant medication, but therapist availability and cost-effectiveness is a problem. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Web-based CBT blended with face-to-face sessions that reduce therapist time in patients with major depression who were unresponsive to antidepressant medications. METHODS:A 12-week, assessor-masked, parallel-group, waiting- list controlled, randomized trial was conducted at 3 medical institutions in Tokyo. Outpatients aged 20-65 years with a primary diagnosis of major depression who were taking ≥1 antidepressant medications at an adequate dose for ≥6 weeks and had a 17-item GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score of ≥14 were randomly assigned (1:1) to blended CBT or waiting-list groups using a computer allocation system, stratified by the study site with the minimization method, to balance age and baseline GRID-HAMD score. The CBT intervention was given in a combined format, comprising a Web-based program and 12 45-minute face-to-face sessions. Thus, across 12 weeks, a participant could receive up to 540 minutes of contact with a therapist, which is approximately two-thirds of the therapist contact time provided in the conventional CBT protocol, which typically provides 16 50-minute sessions. The primary outcome was the alleviation of depressive symptoms, as measured by a change in the total GRID-HAMD score from baseline (at randomization) to posttreatment (at 12 weeks). Moreover, in an exploratory analysis, we investigated whether the expected positive effects of the intervention were sustained during follow-up, 3 months after the posttreatment assessment. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the primary outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS:We randomized 40 participants to either blended CBT (n=20) or waiting-list (n=20) groups. All patients completed the 12-week treatment protocol and were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Participants in the blended CBT group had significantly alleviated depressive symptoms at week 12, as shown by greater least squares mean changes in the GRID-HAMD score, than those in the waiting list group (-8.9 points vs -3.0 points; mean between-group difference=-5.95; 95% CI -9.53 to -2.37; P<.001). The follow-up effects within the blended CBT group, as measured by the GRID-HAMD score, were sustained at the 3-month follow-up (week 24) and posttreatment (week 12): posttreatment, 9.4 (SD 5.2), versus follow-up, 7.2 (SD 5.7); P=.009. CONCLUSIONS:Although our findings warrant confirmation in larger and longer term studies with active controls, these suggest that a combined form of CBT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with major depression who are unresponsive to antidepressant medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION:University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000009242; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000010852 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation. org/729VkpyYL).

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine and adapt a conceptual framework of the working alliance (WA) in the context of a low-intensity blended (psychological well-being practitioner (PWP) plus computerised program) cognitive behavioural therapy intervention (b-CBT) for depression.DesignPatient involvement was enlisted to collaboratively shape the design of the project from the onset, before data collection. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with participants who experienced b-CBT as part of the E-compared trial. A thematic analysis was conducted using a constant comparative method informed by grounded theory.SettingRecruitment was carried out in four psychological primary care services across the UK.ParticipantsNineteen trial participants with major depressive disorder who completed at least one computerised program and face-to-face session with a PWP in the b-CBT arm were recruited to the study.ResultsQualitative interviews that were guided by WA theory and patient involvement, revealed four themes: (1) a healthcare provider (PWP and computerised program) with good interpersonal competencies for building a working relationship with the client ('bond'); (2) collaborative efforts between the client and the provider to appropriately identify what the client hopes to achieve through therapy ('goals'); (3) the selection of acceptable therapeutic activities that address client goals and the availability of responsive support ('task') and (4) the promotion of active engagement and autonomous problem solving ('usability heuristics'). Participants described how the PWP and computerised program uniquely and collectively contributed to different WA needs.ConclusionsThis study is the first to offer a preliminary conceptual framework of WA in b-CBT for depression, and how such demands can be addressed through blended PWP-computerised program delivery. These findings can be used to promote WA in technological design and clinical practice, thereby promoting engagement to b-CBT interventions and effective deployment of practitioner and program resources.Trial registration numberISRCTN12388725.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety symptoms in older adults are prevalent and disabling but often go untreated. Most trials on psychological interventions for anxiety in later life have examined the effectiveness of face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). To bridge the current treatment gap, other treatment approaches and delivery formats should also be evaluated.ObjectiveThis study is the first to examine the effectiveness of a brief blended acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) intervention for older adults with anxiety symptoms, compared with a face-to-face CBT intervention.MethodsAdults aged between 55-75 years (n=314) with mild to moderately severe anxiety symptoms were recruited from general practices and cluster randomized to either blended ACT or face-to-face CBT. Assessments were performed at baseline (T0), posttreatment (T1), and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups (T2 and T3, respectively). The primary outcome was anxiety symptom severity (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7). Secondary outcomes were positive mental health, depression symptom severity, functional impairment, presence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V anxiety disorders, and treatment satisfaction.ResultsConditions did not differ significantly regarding changes in anxiety symptom severity during the study period (T0-T1: B=.18, P=.73; T1-T2: B=-.63, P=.26; T1-T3: B=-.33, P=.59). Large reductions in anxiety symptom severity (Cohen d≥0.96) were found in both conditions post treatment, and these were maintained at the 12-month follow-up. The rates of clinically significant changes in anxiety symptoms were also not different for the blended ACT group and CBT group (χ21=0.2, P=.68). Regarding secondary outcomes, long-term effects on positive mental health were significantly stronger in the blended ACT group (B=.27, P=.03, Cohen d=0.29), and treatment satisfaction was significantly higher for blended ACT than CBT (B=3.19, P<.001, Cohen d=0.78). No other differences between the conditions were observed in the secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThe results show that blended ACT is a valuable treatment alternative to CBT for anxiety in later life.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register TRIAL NL6131 (NTR6270); https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6131.

Project description:Conventional face-to-face weight loss and weight control programs are very labor intensive for both the patient and the provider. It is unclear to what extent conventional programs can be (partially) completed by mobile health (mHealth) apps.The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different weight loss programs using a combination of conventional and mobile programs among adults who are overweight (body mass index [BMI]>29 kg/m²).A single-blinded randomized controlled trial among obese adults was performed from September 2015 to March 2016. The study took place in Leuven, Belgium. Of the 102 eligible (BMI >29 kg/m²) adults, 81 (79%) completed the study. The three intervention groups consisted of a conventional face-to-face weight loss program, a weight loss app program (app group), and a partial face-to-face and partial app program (combi group). All intervention groups received the same advice from a dietician and a physical activity coach during a 12-week period. The control group did not receive any information during the same period. Primary outcomes were weight reduction (5% decrease of baseline weight in kg), BMI, metabolic risk factors, dietary pattern, and physical activity.Significant more participants in all three intervention groups lost at least 5% or more of their weight at baseline compared with the control group. No significant difference was found between the combi group and the conventional group. A trend was found that more participants in the combi group lost 5% or more compared with the app group (19%), P=.06. A significant time x group effect was found for BMI and metabolic risk factors, with the control group having the worst results and the combi group being significantly better with regard to BMI compared with the app group. No significant group x time effects were found for the intake of different food and drinks and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA).The results of this study show that a conventional weight loss program could partially be completed with an mHealth program without affecting the effectiveness.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02595671; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02595671 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6w1H0x1Q6).

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment, but access is often restricted due to costs and limited availability of trained therapists. Blending online and face-to-face CBT for depression might improve cost-effectiveness and treatment availability.ObjectiveThis pilot study aimed to examine the costs and effectiveness of blended CBT compared with standard CBT for depressed patients in specialized mental health care to guide further research and development of blended CBT.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to blended CBT (n=53) or standard CBT (n=49). Blended CBT consisted of 10 weekly face-to-face sessions and 9 Web-based sessions. Standard CBT consisted of 15 to 20 weekly face-to-face sessions. At baseline and 10, 20, and 30 weeks after start of treatment, self-assessed depression severity, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were measured. Clinicians, blinded to treatment allocation, assessed psychopathology at all time points. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. Uncertainty intervals around cost and effect estimates were estimated with 5000 Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsBlended CBT treatment duration was mean 19.0 (SD 12.6) weeks versus mean 33.2 (SD 23.0) weeks in standard CBT (P<.001). No significant differences were found between groups for depressive episodes (risk difference [RD] 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.19), response to treatment (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.15), and QALYs (mean difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04). Mean societal costs for blended CBT were €1183 higher than standard CBT. This difference was not significant (95% CI -399 to 2765). Blended CBT had a probability of being cost-effective compared with standard CBT of 0.02 per extra QALY and 0.37 for an additional treatment response, at a ceiling ratio of €25,000. For health care providers, mean costs for blended CBT were €176 lower than standard CBT. This difference was not significant (95% CI -659 to 343). At €0 per additional unit of effect, the probability of blended CBT being cost-effective compared with standard CBT was 0.75. The probability increased to 0.88 at a ceiling ratio of €5000 for an added treatment response, and to 0.85 at €10,000 per QALY gained. For avoiding new depressive episodes, blended CBT was deemed not cost-effective compared with standard CBT because the increase in costs was associated with negative effects.ConclusionsThis pilot study shows that blended CBT might be a promising way to engage depressed patients in specialized mental health care. Compared with standard CBT, blended CBT was not considered cost-effective from a societal perspective but had an acceptable probability of being cost-effective from the health care provider perspective. Results should be carefully interpreted due to the small sample size. Further research in larger replication studies focused on optimizing the clinical effects of blended CBT and its budget impact is warranted.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR4650; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4408.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1186/s12888-014-0290-z.

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:BackgroundPrevious research has confirmed that symptoms of postnatal depression (PND) can be ameliorated through internet-delivered psychological interventions. Advantages of internet-delivered treatment include anonymity, convenience, and catering to women who are unable to access face-to-face (FTF) treatments. To date, no research has examined the efficacy of such interventions compared directly with FTF treatments in women clinically diagnosed with PND.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the efficacy of one of the first web-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions (internet CBT+coach calls) for PND (MumMoodBooster [MMB]) with FTF-CBT in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).MethodsIn this study, 116 postnatal women with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of major or minor depression were randomized to MMB (39/116, 33.6%), FTF-CBT (39/116, 33.6%), or a treatment-as-usual (TAU) control condition (38/116, 32.8%). Diagnostic status was determined at baseline and at 21-week follow-up using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV. Severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms was evaluated using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales and the revised Beck Depression Inventory at baseline, 12-week follow-up (after treatment), and 21-week follow-up.ResultsOf the 116 participants, 107 (92.2%) had a diagnosis of major depression at baseline. Rates of remission from a major or minor depressive episode at 21 weeks in both the FTF-CBT and MMB groups were superior to that of the TAU group (56.6% and 47.7% less likely to be depressed, respectively) and they were not significantly different from each other. Although remission rates differed between TAU and FTF-CBT, growth models showed that, in terms of symptom reduction across time, the FTF-CBT treatment was not significantly better than TAU. By comparison, MMB was statistically superior to both TAU and FTF-CBT in reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress from baseline to the 21-week follow-up (large and moderate effect sizes). Thus, after 21 weeks, the average symptom scores for depression and anxiety of women receiving MMB were approximately half those of women in both the TAU and FTF-CBT groups.ConclusionsIn this RCT, MMB was at least as effective as FTF-CBT in achieving remission from a diagnosed PND episode. MMB was superior to TAU and FTF-CBT in encouraging and maintaining reduction of symptom severity over the 21-week follow-up for depressed postnatal women. These findings replicate results of prior studies on MMB that showed clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms, and they provide direct empirical support that internet-delivered treatment for depressed postnatal women is a viable alternative to FTF treatment. The generalizability of the results needs to be examined in future research, as RCTs of internet-based versus FTF treatments necessarily involve a subset of people who are willing to undertake either modality of treatment.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000881730; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364683&isReview=true.

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.