Randomized controlled trial of emotion regulation therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy to address distress in cancer caregivers.

IF 3.3
Allison J Applebaum, Jamie M Jacobs, David M Fresco, Michael A Hoyt, Elizabeth Schofield, Morgan J Loschiavo, Mia S O'Toole, Laura E Dunderdale, Douglas S Mennin
{"title":"Randomized controlled trial of emotion regulation therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy to address distress in cancer caregivers.","authors":"Allison J Applebaum, Jamie M Jacobs, David M Fresco, Michael A Hoyt, Elizabeth Schofield, Morgan J Loschiavo, Mia S O'Toole, Laura E Dunderdale, Douglas S Mennin","doi":"10.1093/abm/kaag021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) shows promise for addressing distress in cancer caregivers, though results are mixed. Traditional CBT may not fully address transdiagnostic processes underlying caregiver distress, such as attentional rigidity and perseverative thinking. Emotion Regulation Therapy (ERT), a contemporary CBT targeting these mechanisms, has promise for cancer caregivers (ERT-C). We compared ERT-C to caregiver-adapted CBT (CBT-C) on caregiver- and patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multisite RCT (ERT-C vs. CBT-C) with distressed caregivers of patients with any cancer type or stage. Caregivers completed measures of anxiety, depression, worry, rumination, burden, and quality of life (QOL) at baseline, post-treatment, and 3- and 6-months follow-up. Patients reported outcomes at baseline and 3 months. Linear mixed-effects models with multiple imputation were used to assess group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From March 2021 to April 2024, we randomized 253 caregivers, of whom 244 were analyzed (ERT-C = 124; CBT-C = 120), and enrolled 95 patients (ERT-C = 47; CBT-C = 48), of whom 87 were analyzed. From pre- to post-treatment and through 6 months follow-up, caregivers in ERT-C did not improve significantly more than in CBT-C. Although there were significant between-group differences in patient physical and mental health, these effects did not persist after multiplicity adjustment. However, caregivers overall demonstrated significant improvements over time in anxiety, depression, worry, and QOL, and patients demonstrated significant improvements in perceived stress and emergency room visits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although ERT-C was not superior to CBT-C, caregivers showed meaningful psychosocial improvements overall, and patients improved on 2 outcomes. Future work will examine whether the 2 treatments differentially engage putative mechanisms leading to the observed clinical findings.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04802720).</p>","PeriodicalId":520558,"journal":{"name":"Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13200740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaag021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) shows promise for addressing distress in cancer caregivers, though results are mixed. Traditional CBT may not fully address transdiagnostic processes underlying caregiver distress, such as attentional rigidity and perseverative thinking. Emotion Regulation Therapy (ERT), a contemporary CBT targeting these mechanisms, has promise for cancer caregivers (ERT-C). We compared ERT-C to caregiver-adapted CBT (CBT-C) on caregiver- and patient-reported outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a multisite RCT (ERT-C vs. CBT-C) with distressed caregivers of patients with any cancer type or stage. Caregivers completed measures of anxiety, depression, worry, rumination, burden, and quality of life (QOL) at baseline, post-treatment, and 3- and 6-months follow-up. Patients reported outcomes at baseline and 3 months. Linear mixed-effects models with multiple imputation were used to assess group differences.

Results: From March 2021 to April 2024, we randomized 253 caregivers, of whom 244 were analyzed (ERT-C = 124; CBT-C = 120), and enrolled 95 patients (ERT-C = 47; CBT-C = 48), of whom 87 were analyzed. From pre- to post-treatment and through 6 months follow-up, caregivers in ERT-C did not improve significantly more than in CBT-C. Although there were significant between-group differences in patient physical and mental health, these effects did not persist after multiplicity adjustment. However, caregivers overall demonstrated significant improvements over time in anxiety, depression, worry, and QOL, and patients demonstrated significant improvements in perceived stress and emergency room visits.

Conclusions: Although ERT-C was not superior to CBT-C, caregivers showed meaningful psychosocial improvements overall, and patients improved on 2 outcomes. Future work will examine whether the 2 treatments differentially engage putative mechanisms leading to the observed clinical findings.

Clinical trial registration: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04802720).

情绪调节疗法与认知行为疗法解决癌症护理者痛苦的随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书