1.
Therapist-supported Internet cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in adults.
Olthuis, JV, Watt, MC, Bailey, K, Hayden, JA, Stewart, SH
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;3:CD011565
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Previous research has supported the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of anxiety disorders, which is aimed at changing negative or unhealthy thinking patterns. Many individuals with anxiety find it challenging to get to CBT appointments and so an internet-based programme, with telephone and email support, has been developed. This systematic review of 38 randomised controlled trial studies aimed to assess the effects of internet CBT (ICBT) on anxiety symptoms and severity. The results showed that there was a clinically important improvement in anxiety alongside reductions in symptom severity and an increase in the patient’s quality of life (QoL) when following ICBT compared to no treatment or online support group discussions. When comparing supported ICBT and self-guided CBT there were no differences between anxiety symptom severity and QoL. When comparing ICBT and face to face therapist-supported CBT, no differences were reported in anxiety symptoms and QoL. It was concluded that ICBT is more beneficial than no treatment or online discussion groups and may be just as useful as face-to-face CBT. The number of studies that compared ICBT to self-guided CBT was limited and so specific conclusions were difficult to ascertain. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that people suffering from anxiety may not be receiving the treatment they need for fears of new situations or leaving the house. In this instance ICBT is an alternative treatment that is just as beneficial as face-to-face therapy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders. Many people have difficulty accessing treatment, due to a variety of obstacles. Researchers have therefore explored the possibility of using the Internet to deliver CBT; it is important to ensure the decision to promote such treatment is grounded in high quality evidence. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of therapist-supported Internet CBT (ICBT) on remission of anxiety disorder diagnosis and reduction of anxiety symptoms in adults as compared to waiting list control, unguided CBT, or face-to-face CBT. Effects of treatment on quality of life and patient satisfaction with the intervention were also assessed. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 16 March 2015. The CCDANCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies. We contacted authors to locate additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA Each identified study was independently assessed for inclusion by two authors. To be included, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of therapist-supported ICBT compared to a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group; unguided CBT (that is, self-help); or face-to-face CBT. We included studies that treated adults with an anxiety disorder (panic disorder, agoraphobia, social phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and specific phobia) defined according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III, III-R, IV, IV-TR or the International Classification of Disesases 9 or 10. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and judged overall study quality. We used data from intention-to-treat analyses wherever possible. We assessed treatment effect for the dichotomous outcome of clinically important improvement in anxiety using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For disorder-specific and general anxiety symptom measures and quality of life we assessed continuous scores using standardized mean differences (SMD). We examined statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS We screened 1736 citations and selected 38 studies (3214 participants) for inclusion. The studies examined social phobia (11 trials), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (8 trials), generalized anxiety disorder (5 trials), post-traumatic stress disorder (2 trials), obsessive compulsive disorder (2 trials), and specific phobia (2 trials). Eight remaining studies included a range of anxiety disorder diagnoses. Studies were conducted in Sweden (18 trials), Australia (14 trials), Switzerland (3 trials), the Netherlands (2 trials), and the USA (1 trial) and investigated a variety of ICBT protocols. Three primary comparisons were identified, therapist-supported ICBT versus waiting list control, therapist-supported versus unguided ICBT, and therapist-supported ICBT versus face-to-face CBT.Low quality evidence from 11 studies (866 participants) contributed to a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 3.75 (95% CI 2.51 to 5.60; I(2) = 50%) for clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment, favouring therapist-supported ICBT over a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only. The SMD for disorder-specific symptoms at post-treatment (28 studies, 2147 participants; SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.82; I(2) = 83%) and general anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (19 studies, 1496 participants; SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.52; I(2) = 78%) favoured therapist-supported ICBT; the quality of the evidence for both outcomes was low.One study compared unguided CBT to therapist-supported ICBT for clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment, showing no difference in outcome between treatments (54 participants; very low quality evidence). At post-treatment there were no clear differences between unguided CBT and therapist-supported ICBT for disorder-specific anxiety symptoms (5 studies, 312 participants; SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.13; I(2) = 58%; very low quality evidence) or general anxiety symptoms (2 studies, 138 participants; SMD 0.28, 95% CI -2.21 to 2.78; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence).Compared to face-to-face CBT, therapist-supported ICBT showed no significant differences in clinically important improvement in anxiety at post-treatment (4 studies, 365 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between face-to-face and therapist supported ICBT for disorder-specific anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (7 studies, 450 participants; SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.37; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence) or general anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (5 studies, 317 participants; SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.69; I(2) = 78%; low quality evidence).Overall, risk of bias in included studies was low or unclear for most domains. However, due to the nature of psychosocial intervention trials, blinding of participants and personnel, and outcome assessment tended to have a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity across a number of the meta-analyses was substantial, some was explained by type of anxiety disorder or may be meta-analytic measurement artefact due to combining many assessment measures. Adverse events were rarely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Therapist-supported ICBT appears to be an efficacious treatment for anxiety in adults. The evidence comparing therapist-supported ICBT to waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only control was low to moderate quality, the evidence comparing therapist-supported ICBT to unguided ICBT was very low quality, and comparisons of therapist-supported ICBT to face-to-face CBT were low quality. Further research is needed to better define and measure any potential harms resulting from treatment. These findings suggest that therapist-supported ICBT is more efficacious than a waiting list, attention, information, or online discussion group only control, and that there may not be a significant difference in outcome between unguided CBT and therapist-supported ICBT; however, this latter finding must be interpreted with caution due to imprecision. The evidence suggests that therapist-supported ICBT may not be significantly different from face-to-face CBT in reducing anxiety. Future research should explore heterogeneity among studies which is reducing the quality of the evidence body, involve equivalence trials comparing ICBT and face-to-face CBT, examine the importance of the role of the therapist in ICBT, and include effectiveness trials of ICBT in real-world settings. A timely update to this review is needed given the fast pace of this area of research.
2.
Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey.
Paterson, C
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 1996;312(7037):1016-20
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
The patient's personal experience of illness, as well as the influence of the wide variety of help and treatments they seek, needs to be incorporated into the measurement process. The aim of the study was to test the instrument, the "measure yourself medical outcome profile"—MYMOP—alongside the SF-36 health survey for responsiveness, validity, and clinical usefulness in primary care. The study’s sample consisted of 265 patients, of whom 218 were recruited by general practitioners and 47 by complementary practitioners. MYMOP was designed and piloted in the practice over four months. It consists of four items, each scored by the patient on a seven-point scale. Results indicate that the instrument was applicable to all patients presenting with symptoms to conventional and complementary practitioners, and it elicited high response and completion rates. Responsiveness to change of the SF-36 health survey was poor no matter what the method of assessment. Authors conclude that the MYMOP questionnaire and chart can be used to visually chart progress and quantify outcomes in case studies.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the sensitivity to within person change over time of an outcome measure for practitioners in primary care that is applicable to a wide range of illness. DESIGN Comparison of a new patient generated instrument, the measure yourself medical outcome profile (MYMOP), with the SF-36 health profile and a five point change score; all scales were completed during the consultation with' practitioners and repeated after four weeks. 103 patients were followed up for 16 weeks and their results charted; seven practitioners were interviewed. SETTING Established practice of the four NHS general practitioners and four of the private complementary practitioners working in one medical centre. SUBJECTS Systematic sample of 218 patients from general practice and all 47 patients of complementary practitioners; patients had had symptoms for more than seven days. OUTCOME MEASURES Standardised response mean and index of responsiveness; view of practitioners. RESULTS The index of responsiveness, relating to the minimal clinically important difference, was high for MYMOP 1.4 for the first symptom, 1.33 for activity, and 0.85 for the profile compared with < 0.45 for SF-36. MYMOP's validity was supported by significant correlation between the change score and the change in the MYMOP score and the ability of this instrument to detect more improvement in acute than in chronic conditions. Practitioners found that MYMOP was practical and applicable to all patients with symptoms and that its use increased their awareness of patients' priorities. CONCLUSION MYMOP shows promise as an outcome measure for primary care and for complementary treatment. It is more sensitive to change than the SF-36 and has the added bonus of improving patient-practitioner communication.