Tom Cawthorne, Anton Käll, Sophie Bennett, Elena Baker, Emily Cheung, Roz Shafran
{"title":"美国国家临床卓越研究所指南中推荐的针对青少年焦虑和相关障碍的认知行为治疗干预的单例实验设计是否导致随机对照试验？系统的回顾。","authors":"Tom Cawthorne, Anton Käll, Sophie Bennett, Elena Baker, Emily Cheung, Roz Shafran","doi":"10.1002/jcv2.12181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Although Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is effective for 60% of adolescents with anxiety disorders, only 36% are in remission post-intervention. This indicates that more effective treatments are needed which should be reflected in the NICE guidelines. We hypothesised that Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) may provide a framework for accelerating the development of novel interventions. The primary purpose of this review was to investigate whether SCEDs are currently followed by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT intervention for adolescent anxiety disorders named in the NICE guidelines. The secondary objective was to investigate whether using SCEDs prior to RCTs could be a helpful approach.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>For the primary search of SCEDs five databases were used (PsycINFO, PubMed, PsycArticles, Web of Science and ProQuest). Nineteen articles met eligibility criteria including a total of 107 participants. For the secondary search of RCTs named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders 53 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The 19 SCED studies included in the review were conducted with participants with a diverse range of anxiety disorders and across a range of CBT formats. Two of the SCEDs were followed by RCTs, but neither of these were named in the NICE guidelines for anxiety disorders. All of the SCEDs identified were rated as low quality with none meeting the criteria for the highest or second highest quality rating. From the secondary searches, none of the RCTs named in the NICE guide were preceded by SCEDs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>It was concluded that currently SCEDs were not followed by RCTs of CBT interventions named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders. However, it was suggested that SCEDs may provide an important framework for the development of more effective interventions for adolescents with anxiety.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73542,"journal":{"name":"JCPP advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcv2.12181","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do single-case experimental designs lead to randomised controlled trials of cognitive behavioural therapy interventions for adolescent anxiety and related disorders recommended in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines? A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Tom Cawthorne, Anton Käll, Sophie Bennett, Elena Baker, Emily Cheung, Roz Shafran\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jcv2.12181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is effective for 60% of adolescents with anxiety disorders, only 36% are in remission post-intervention. This indicates that more effective treatments are needed which should be reflected in the NICE guidelines. We hypothesised that Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) may provide a framework for accelerating the development of novel interventions. The primary purpose of this review was to investigate whether SCEDs are currently followed by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT intervention for adolescent anxiety disorders named in the NICE guidelines. The secondary objective was to investigate whether using SCEDs prior to RCTs could be a helpful approach.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>For the primary search of SCEDs five databases were used (PsycINFO, PubMed, PsycArticles, Web of Science and ProQuest). Nineteen articles met eligibility criteria including a total of 107 participants. For the secondary search of RCTs named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders 53 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The 19 SCED studies included in the review were conducted with participants with a diverse range of anxiety disorders and across a range of CBT formats. Two of the SCEDs were followed by RCTs, but neither of these were named in the NICE guidelines for anxiety disorders. All of the SCEDs identified were rated as low quality with none meeting the criteria for the highest or second highest quality rating. From the secondary searches, none of the RCTs named in the NICE guide were preceded by SCEDs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>It was concluded that currently SCEDs were not followed by RCTs of CBT interventions named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders. However, it was suggested that SCEDs may provide an important framework for the development of more effective interventions for adolescents with anxiety.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCPP advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcv2.12181\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCPP advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcv2.12181\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCPP advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcv2.12181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景：尽管认知行为疗法（CBT）对60%的焦虑症青少年有效，但只有36%的青少年在干预后病情缓解。这表明需要更有效的治疗，这应该反映在NICE指南中。我们假设，单例实验设计（SCED）可能为加快新干预措施的开发提供一个框架。本综述的主要目的是调查目前是否在SCED之后进行NICE指南中命名的CBT干预青少年焦虑症的随机对照试验（RCT）。次要目的是调查在随机对照试验之前使用SCED是否是一种有用的方法。方法：采用5个数据库（PsycINFO、PubMed、PsycArticles、Web of Science和ProQuest）对SCED进行初步检索。19篇文章符合资格标准，共有107名参与者。在NICE青少年焦虑症指南中命名的随机对照试验的二次搜索中，有53篇文章符合纳入标准，并被纳入系统综述。结果：综述中包括的19项SCED研究是针对患有各种焦虑症和CBT形式的参与者进行的。其中两个SCED之后进行了随机对照试验，但这两个都没有在NICE焦虑症指南中命名。所有确定的SCED都被评为低质量，没有一个符合最高或第二高质量评级的标准。从二次搜索来看，NICE指南中命名的随机对照试验之前没有SCED。结论：目前SCED之后没有NICE指南针对青少年焦虑症命名的CBT干预的随机对照研究。然而，有人认为，SCED可能为制定更有效的焦虑青少年干预措施提供一个重要框架。
Do single-case experimental designs lead to randomised controlled trials of cognitive behavioural therapy interventions for adolescent anxiety and related disorders recommended in the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines? A systematic review
Background
Although Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is effective for 60% of adolescents with anxiety disorders, only 36% are in remission post-intervention. This indicates that more effective treatments are needed which should be reflected in the NICE guidelines. We hypothesised that Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) may provide a framework for accelerating the development of novel interventions. The primary purpose of this review was to investigate whether SCEDs are currently followed by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT intervention for adolescent anxiety disorders named in the NICE guidelines. The secondary objective was to investigate whether using SCEDs prior to RCTs could be a helpful approach.
Method
For the primary search of SCEDs five databases were used (PsycINFO, PubMed, PsycArticles, Web of Science and ProQuest). Nineteen articles met eligibility criteria including a total of 107 participants. For the secondary search of RCTs named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders 53 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review.
Results
The 19 SCED studies included in the review were conducted with participants with a diverse range of anxiety disorders and across a range of CBT formats. Two of the SCEDs were followed by RCTs, but neither of these were named in the NICE guidelines for anxiety disorders. All of the SCEDs identified were rated as low quality with none meeting the criteria for the highest or second highest quality rating. From the secondary searches, none of the RCTs named in the NICE guide were preceded by SCEDs.
Conclusions
It was concluded that currently SCEDs were not followed by RCTs of CBT interventions named in the NICE guidelines for adolescent anxiety disorders. However, it was suggested that SCEDs may provide an important framework for the development of more effective interventions for adolescents with anxiety.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
