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: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: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:BackgroundSleep disturbance symptoms are common in major depressive disorder (MDD) and have been found to hamper the treatment effect of conventional face-to-face psychological treatments such as cognitive behavioral therapy. To increase the dissemination of evidence-based treatment, blended cognitive behavioral therapy (bCBT) consisting of web-based and face-to-face treatment is on the rise for patients with MDD. To date, no study has examined whether sleep disturbance symptoms have an impact on bCBT treatment outcomes and whether it affects bCBT and treatment-as-usual (TAU) equally.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study are to investigate whether baseline sleep disturbance symptoms have an impact on treatment outcomes independent of treatment modality and whether sleep disturbance symptoms impact bCBT and TAU in routine care equally.MethodsThe study was based on data from the E-COMPARED (European Comparative Effectiveness Research on Blended Depression Treatment Versus Treatment-as-Usual) study, a 2-arm, multisite, parallel randomized controlled, noninferiority trial. A total of 943 outpatients with MDD were randomized to either bCBT (476/943, 50.5%) or TAU consisting of routine clinical MDD treatment (467/943, 49.5%). The primary outcome of this study was the change in depression symptom severity at the 12-month follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the change in depression symptom severity at the 3- and 6-month follow-up and MDD diagnoses at the 12-month follow-up, assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, respectively. Mixed effects models were used to examine the association of sleep disturbance symptoms with treatment outcome and treatment modality over time.ResultsOf the 943 patients recruited for the study, 558 (59.2%) completed the 12-month follow-up assessment. In the total sample, baseline sleep disturbance symptoms did not significantly affect change in depressive symptom severity at the 12-month follow-up (β=.16, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.36). However, baseline sleep disturbance symptoms were negatively associated with treatment outcome for bCBT (β=.49, 95% CI 0.22-0.76) but not for TAU (β=-.23, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.05) at the 12-month follow-up, even when adjusting for baseline depression symptom severity. The same result was seen for the effect of sleep disturbance symptoms on the presence of depression measured with Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview at the 12-month follow-up. However, for both treatment formats, baseline sleep disturbance symptoms were not associated with depression symptom severity at either the 3- (β=.06, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.23) or 6-month (β=.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28) follow-up.ConclusionsBaseline sleep disturbance symptoms may have a negative impact on long-term treatment outcomes in bCBT for MDD. This effect was not observed for TAU. These findings suggest that special attention to sleep disturbance symptoms might be warranted when MDD is treated with bCBT. Future studies should investigate the effect of implementing modules specifically targeting sleep disturbance symptoms in bCBT for MDD to improve long-term prognosis.

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.