Lina Gega

Computer-aided psychotherapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review

Computer‐aided psychotherapy (CP) is said to (1) be as effective as face‐to‐face psychotherapy, while requiring less therapist time, for anxiety disorder sufferers, (2) speed access to care, and (3) save traveling time. CP may be delivered on stand‐alone or Internet‐linked computers, palmtop computers, phone‐interactive voice response, DVDs, and cell phones. The authors performed a meta‐analysis of 23 randomised controlled studies (RCTs) that compared CP with non‐CP in anxiety disorders: phobias, n = 10; panic disorder/agoraphobia, n = 9; PTSD, n = 3; obsessive–compulsive disorder, n = 1. Overall mean effect size of CP compared with non‐CP was 1.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.84–1.32). CP and face‐to‐face psychotherapy did not differ significantly from each other (13 comparisons, d = −0.06). Much caution is needed when interpreting the findings indicating that outcome was unrelated to type of disorder, type of comparison group, mode of CP delivery (Internet, stand‐alone PC, palmtop), and recency of the CP system and that effect size decreased when more therapist time was replaced by the computer. Because CP as a whole was as effective as face‐to‐face psychotherapy, certain forms of CP deserve to be integrated into routine practice.

Hands-on help: computer-aided psychotherapy

The book describes and summarizes 97 computer-aided self-help systems in 175 studies according to the types of problem they aim to alleviate. These include phobic, panic, obsessive-compulsive and post-traumatic disorders, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, sexual problems, smoking, alcohol and drug misuse, schizophrenia, insomnia, pain and tinnitus distress, and childhood problems such as encopresis, autism and asthma. Within each type of problem the systems are described according to whether they are used on the internet, CD-ROM, phone, handheld or other device. The final chapter shows how internet self-help systems with phone or email support allow clinics to become more virtual than physical. It also discusses methods of screening suitability and of supporting users, constraints to delivery, uptake and completion, cost-effectiveness, and the place of computer-aided self-help in healthcare provision.

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for depression by computer vs. therapist: Patient experiences and therapeutic processes

Abstract This case series compares patient experiences and therapeutic processes between two modalities of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for depression: computerized CBT (cCBT) and therapist-delivered CBT (tCBT). In a mixed-methods repeated-measures case series, six participants were offered cCBT and tCBT in sequence, with the order of delivery randomized across participants. Questionnaires about patient experiences were administered after each session and a semi-structured interview was completed with each participant at the end of each therapy modality. Therapy expectations, patient experiences and session impact ratings in this study generally favoured tCBT. Participants typically experienced cCBT sessions as less meaningful, less positive and less helpful compared to tCBT sessions in terms of developing understanding, facilitating problem-solving and building a therapeutic relationship.

Effects of standard and explicit cognitive bias modification and computer-administered cognitive-behaviour therapy on cognitive biases and social anxiety.

Background and objectives This study examines the effects of a single session of Cognitive Bias Modification to induce positive Interpretative bias (CBM-I) using standard or explicit instructions and an analogue of computer-administered CBT (c-CBT) program on modifying cognitive biases and social anxiety. Methods A sample of 76 volunteers with social anxiety attended a research site. At both pre- and post-test, participants completed two computer-administered tests of interpretative and attentional biases and a self-report measure of social anxiety. Participants in the training conditions completed a single session of either standard or explicit CBM-I positive training and a c-CBT program. Participants in the Control (no training) condition completed a CBM-I neutral task matched the active CBM-I intervention in format and duration but did not encourage positive disambiguation of socially ambiguous or threatening scenarios. Results Participants in both CBM-I programs (either standard or explicit instructions) and the c-CBT condition exhibited more positive interpretations of ambiguous social scenarios at post-test and one-week follow-up as compared to the Control condition. Moreover, the results showed that CBM-I and c-CBT, to some extent, changed negative attention biases in a positive direction. Furthermore, the results showed that both CBM-I training conditions and c-CBT reduced social anxiety symptoms at one-week follow-up. Limitations This study used a single session of CBM-I training, however multi-sessions intervention might result in more endurable positive CBM-I changes. Conclusions A computerised single session of CBM-I and an analogue of c-CBT program reduced negative interpretative biases and social anxiety.

Mental health service provision in low and middle income countries

This article discusses the provision of mental health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a view to understanding the cultural dynamics–how the challenges they pose can be addressed and the opportunities harnessed in specific cultural contexts. The article highlights the need for prioritisation of mental health services by incorporating local population and cultural needs. This can be achieved only through political will and strengthened legislation, improved resource allocation and strategic organisation, integrated packages of care underpinned by professional communication and training, and involvement of patients, informal carers, and the wider community in a therapeutic capacity.

Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy Trial (OCTET) comparing the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-managed therapies: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundUK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required.Methods/DesignOur proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments.DiscussionThis study will provide more robust evidence of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability of self-help treatments for OCD. If cCBT and/or GSH prove effective, it will provide additional, more accessible treatment options for people with OCD.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN73535163. Date of registration: 5 April 2011

Can a computerised training paradigm assist people with intellectual disabilities to learn cognitive mediation skills? : A randomised experiment

AIMS The aim was to examine whether specific skills required for cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) could be taught using a computerised training paradigm with people who have intellectual disabilities (IDs). Training aimed to improve: a) ability to link pairs of situations and mediating beliefs to emotions, and b) ability to link pairs of situations and emotions to mediating beliefs. METHOD Using a single-blind mixed experimental design, sixty-five participants with IDs were randomised to receive either computerised training or an attention-control condition. Cognitive mediation skills were assessed before and after training. RESULTS Participants who received training were significantly better at selecting appropriate emotions within situation-beliefs pairs, controlling for baseline scores and IQ. Despite significant improvements in the ability of those who received training to correctly select intermediating beliefs for situation-feelings pairings, no between-group differences were observed at post-test. CONCLUSIONS The findings indicated that computerised training led to a significant improvement in some aspects of cognitive mediation for people with IDs, but whether this has a positive effect upon outcome from therapy is yet to be established.

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET).

BACKGROUND The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. DESIGN A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. RESULTS Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. LIMITATIONS A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. CONCLUSIONS Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness

Background Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. “High-intensity” cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current “best practice.” However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for “low-intensity” interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD. Methods and findings This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West–Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through “OCFighter” or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale–Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = −1.91, 95% CI −3.27 to −0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of “clinically significant benefit.” cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = −0.71, 95% CI −2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment. Conclusions We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT. Trial registration International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163.

The virtues of virtual reality in exposure therapy

Virtual reality can be more effective and less burdensome than real-life exposure. Optimal virtual reality delivery should incorporate in situ direct dialogues with a therapist, discourage safety behaviours, allow for a mismatch between virtual and real exposure tasks, and encourage self-directed real-life practice between and beyond virtual reality sessions.