Dataset Information

Adherence With Online Therapy vs Face-to-Face Therapy and With Online Therapy vs Care as Usual: Secondary Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adherence to internet-delivered interventions targeting mental health such as online psychotherapeutic aftercare is important for the intervention's impact. High dropout rates limit the impact and generalizability of findings. Baseline differences may be putting patients at risk for dropping out, making comparisons between online with face-to-face (F2F) therapy and care as usual (CAU) necessary to examine.

Objective

This study investigated adherence to online, F2F, and CAU interventions as well as study dropout among these groups and the subjective evaluation of the therapeutic relationship. Sociodemographic, social-cognitive, and health-related variables were considered.

Methods

In a randomized controlled trial, 6023 patients were recruited, and 300 completed the baseline measures (T1), 144 completed T2 (retention 44%-52%), and 95 completed T3 (retention 24%-36%). Sociodemographic variables (eg, age, gender, marital status, educational level), social-cognitive determinants (eg, self-efficacy, social support), health-related variables (eg, depressiveness), and expectation towards the treatment for patients assigned to online or F2F were measured at T1.

Results

There were no significant differences between the groups regarding dropout rates (χ²₁=0.02-1.06, P≥.30). Regarding adherence to the treatment condition, the online group outperformed the F2F and CAU conditions (P≤.01), indicating that patients randomized into the F2F and CAU control groups were much more likely to show nonadherent behavior in comparison with the online therapy groups. Within study groups, gender differences were significant only in the CAU group at T2, with women being more likely to drop out. At T3, age and marital status were also only significant in the CAU group. Patients in the online therapy group were significantly more satisfied with their treatment than patients in the F2F group (P=.02; Eta²=.09). Relationship satisfaction and success satisfaction were equally high (P>.30; Eta²=.02). Combining all study groups, patients who reported lower depressiveness scores at T1 (T2: odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87; T3: OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.92) were more likely to be retained, and patients who had higher self-efficacy (T2: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.89; T3: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85) were more likely to drop out at T2 and T3. Additionally, at T3, the lower social support that patients reported was related to a higher likelihood of remaining in the study (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). Comparing the 3 intervention groups, positive expectation was significantly related with questionnaire completion at T2 and T3 after controlling for other variables (T2: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.50; T3: OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.51).

Conclusions

While online interventions have many advantages over F2F variants such as saving time and effort to commute to F2F therapy, they also create difficulties for therapists and hinder their ability to adequately react to patients' challenges. Accordingly, patient characteristics that might put them at risk for dropping out or not adhering to the treatment plan should be considered in future research and practice. Online aftercare, as described in this research, should be provided more often to medical rehabilitation patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04989842; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04989842.

SUBMITTER: Lippke S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8600425 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePostpartum depression (PPD) affects as many as 20% of mothers, yet just 1 in 10 of these women receives evidence-based treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased PPD risk, reduced treatment access, and shifted preferences toward virtual care.ObjectiveTo determine whether an online 1-day cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based workshop added to treatment as usual improves PPD, anxiety, social support, mother-infant relationship quality, and infant temperament more than treatment as usual alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included 403 women with PPD who were recruited across Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic (April 20 to October 4, 2020). Women with Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores of at least 10 who were 18 years or older and had an infant younger than 12 months were eligible.InterventionsWomen were randomly assigned to receive a live, interactive online 1-day CBT-based workshop delivered by a registered psychotherapist, psychiatrist, or clinical psychology graduate student in addition to treatment as usual (n = 202) or to receive treatment as usual and wait-listed to receive the workshop 12 weeks later (n = 201).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in PPD (EPDS scores) in experimental and wait list control groups 12 weeks after baseline. Secondary outcomes included maternal anxiety (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-7]), social support (Social Provisions Scale), quality of the mother-infant relationship (Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire), and infant temperament (Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised Very Short Form).ResultsParticipants all identified as women with a mean (SD) age of 31.8 (4.4) years. The workshop led to significant mean (SD) reductions in EPDS scores (from 16.47 [4.41] to 11.65 [4.83]; B = -4.82; P < .001) and was associated with a higher odds of exhibiting a clinically significant decrease in EPDS scores (odds ratio, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.66-6.46). The mean (SD) GAD-7 scores decreased from 12.41 (5.12) to 7.97 (5.54) after the workshop (B = -4.44; 95% CI, -5.47 to -3.38; P < .001) and participants were more likely to experience a clinically significant change (odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.99-4.81). Mothers also reported improvements in bonding (B = -3.22; 95% CI, -4.72 to -1.71; P < .001), infant-focused anxiety (B = -1.64; 95% CI, -2.25 to 1.00; P < .001), social support (B = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.57; P < .001), and positive affectivity/surgency in infants (B = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.56; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, an online 1-day CBT-based workshop for PPD provides an effective, brief option for mothers, reducing PPD and anxiety as well as improving social support, the mother-infant relationship, and positive affectivity/surgency in offspring.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04485000.

Project description:ImportancePeople at risk of self-harm or suicidal behavior can be accurately identified, but effective prevention will require effective scalable interventions.ObjectiveTo compare 2 low-intensity outreach programs with usual care for prevention of suicidal behavior among outpatients who report recent frequent suicidal thoughts.Design, setting, and participantsPragmatic randomized clinical trial including outpatients reporting frequent suicidal thoughts identified using routine Patient Health Questionnaire depression screening at 4 US integrated health systems. A total of 18 882 patients were randomized between March 2015 and September 2018, and ascertainment of outcomes continued through March 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized to a care management intervention (n = 6230) that included systematic outreach and care, a skills training intervention (n = 6227) that introduced 4 dialectical behavior therapy skills (mindfulness, mindfulness of current emotion, opposite action, and paced breathing), or usual care (n = 6187). Interventions, lasting up to 12 months, were delivered primarily through electronic health record online messaging and were intended to supplement ongoing mental health care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to first nonfatal or fatal self-harm. Nonfatal self-harm was ascertained from health system records, and fatal self-harm was ascertained from state mortality data. Secondary outcomes included more severe self-harm (leading to death or hospitalization) and a broader definition of self-harm (selected injuries and poisonings not originally coded as self-harm).ResultsA total of 18 644 patients (9009 [48%] aged 45 years or older; 12 543 [67%] female; 9222 [50%] from mental health specialty clinics and the remainder from primary care) contributed at least 1 day of follow-up data and were included in analyses. Thirty-one percent of participants offered care management and 39% offered skills training actively engaged in intervention programs. A total of 540 participants had a self-harm event (including 45 deaths attributed to self-harm and 495 nonfatal self-harm events) over 18 months following randomization: 172 (3.27%) in care management, 206 (3.92%) in skills training, and 162 (3.27%) in usual care. Risk of fatal or nonfatal self-harm over 18 months did not differ significantly between the care management and usual care groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.84-1.37) but was significantly higher in the skills training group than in usual care (HR, 1.29; 97.5% CI, 1.02-1.64). For severe self-harm, care management vs usual care had an HR of 1.03 (97.5% CI, 0.71-1.51); skills training vs usual care had an HR of 1.34 (97.5% CI, 0.94-1.91). For the broader self-harm definition, care management vs usual care had an HR of 1.10 (97.5% CI, 0.92-1.33); skills training vs usual care had an HR of 1.17 (97.5% CI, 0.97-1.41).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adult outpatients with frequent suicidal ideation, offering care management did not significantly reduce risk of self-harm, and offering brief dialectical behavior therapy skills training significantly increased risk of self-harm, compared with usual care. These findings do not support implementation of the programs tested in this study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02326883.

Project description:ImportanceCumulative exposure to high blood pressure (BP) is an adverse prognostic marker. Assessments of BP control over time, such as time at target, have been developed but assessments of the effects of BP-lowering interventions on such measures are lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether low-dose triple combination antihypertensive therapy was associated with greater rates of time at target compared with usual care.Design, setting, and participantsThe Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial was a open-label randomized clinical trial of low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care conducted in urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017. Adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, systolic BP >130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy were included. Patients were excluded if they were currently taking 2 or more blood pressure-lowering drugs or had severe or uncontrolled blood pressure, accelerated hypertension or physician-determined need for slower titration of treatment, a contraindication to the triple combination pill therapy, an unstable medical condition, or clinically significant laboratory values deemed by researchers to be unsuitable for the study. All 700 individuals in the original trial were included in the secondary analysis. This post hoc analysis was conducted from December 2020 to December 2021.InterventionOnce-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg, and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg) therapy vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresBetween-group differences in time at target were compared over 24 weeks of follow-up, with time at target defined as percentage of time at target BP.ResultsThere were a total of 700 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years; 403 [57.6%] women). Patients allocated to the triple pill group (n = 349) had higher time at target compared with those in the usual care group (n = 351) over 24 weeks' follow-up (64% vs 43%; risk difference, 21%; 95% CI, 16-26; P < .001). Almost twice as many patients receiving triple pill therapy achieved more than 50% time at target during follow-up (64% vs 37%; P < .001). The association of the triple pill with an increase in time at target was seen early, with most patients achieving more than 50% time at target by 12 weeks. Those receiving the triple pill achieved a consistently higher time at target at all follow-up periods compared with those receiving usual care (mean [SD]: 0-6 weeks, 36.3% [30.9%] vs 21.7% [28.9%]; P < .001; 6-12 weeks, 55.2% [31.9%] vs 33.7% [33.0%]; P < .001; 12-24 weeks, 66.0% [31.1%] vs 43.5% [34.3%]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceTo our knowledge, this analysis provides the first estimate of time at target as an outcome assessing longitudinal BP control in a randomized clinical trial. Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a low-dose triple combination pill was associated with substantially higher time at target compared with usual care.

Project description:ImportanceThe incidence rate of neck pain is increasing worldwide, and the disease is associated with a high social burden. Manual therapy has been widely applied in the treatment of neck pain, but a high-quality, pragmatic randomized clinical trial for this treatment has not been conducted to date.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy with that of usual care for patients with chronic neck pain.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, assessor-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 18, 2017, and June 28, 2019. This intention-to-treat analysis included 108 patients with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months; patients were recruited from 5 hospitals in Korea.InterventionsTen sessions (2 sessions per week for 5 weeks) of Chuna manual therapy or usual care (electrotherapy and oral medication) were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the difference in visual analog scale (VAS) score for chronic neck pain between baseline and 5 weeks after randomization.ResultsThis randomized clinical trial recruited 108 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [9.3] years; 73 women [67.6%]). Fifty-four patients were allocated to the Chuna therapy group, and 54 received usual care. At 5 weeks after randomization, manual therapy showed statistically superior results compared with usual care in terms of pain (difference in chronic neck pain VAS, 16.8 mm; 95% CI, 10.1-23.5 mm), function (difference in Neck Disability Index, 8.6%; 95% CI, 4.2%-13.1%), and quality of life (difference in the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores, -0.07 points; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02 points). Regarding the 1-year cumulative values measured using area under the curve analyses, superior outcomes were attained in the manual therapy group in terms of the numerical rating scale for chronic neck pain (1.3 points; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0 points), Neck Disability Index (6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.9%), Neck Pain Questionnaire (7.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-12.6%), and EQ-5D-5L scores (-0.03 points; -0.07 to 0.00 points).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03294785.

Project description:BackgroundResearch on stroke rehabilitation often addresses common difficulties such as gait, balance or physical activity separately, a fragmentation contrasting the complexity in clinical practice. Interventions aiming for recovery are needed. The purpose of this study was to investigate effects of a comprehensive low-cost physical therapy intervention, I-CoreDIST, vs. usual care on postural control, balance, physical activity, gait and health related quality of life during the first 12 weeks post-stroke.MethodsThis prospective, assessor-masked randomized controlled trial included 60 participants from two stroke units in Norway. Participants, who were randomized to I-CoreDIST (n = 29) or usual care physical therapy (n = 31), received 5 sessions/week when in-patients or 3 sessions/week as out-patients. Primary outcomes were the Trunk Impairment Scale-modified Norwegian version (TISmodNV) and activity monitoring (ActiGraphsWgt3X-BT). Secondary outcomes were the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke, MiniBesTEST, 10-meter walk test, 2-minute walk test, force-platform measurements and EQ5D-3L. Stroke specific quality of life scale was administered at 12 weeks. Linear regression and non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis.ResultsFive participants were excluded and seven lost to follow-up, leaving 48 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis. There were no significant between-group effects for primary outcomes: TIS-modNV (p = 0,857); daily average minutes of sedative (p = 0.662), light (p = 0.544) or moderate activity (p = 0.239) and steps (p = 0.288), or secondary outcomes at 12 weeks except for significant improvements on EQ5D-3L in the usual care group. Within-group changes were significant for all outcomes in both groups except for activity levels that were low, EQ5D-3L favoring the usual care group, and force-platform data favoring the intervention group.ConclusionsPhysical therapy treatment with I-CoreDIST improved postural control, balance, physical activity and gait during the first 12 weeks after a stroke but is not superior to usual care.

Project description:ImportanceAccessible 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsA 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.InterventionsParticipants 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceThis 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02665975.