基于互联网的偏头痛认知行为疗法自我指导随机试验。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Anna Huguet, Sharlene Rozario, William Chaplin, Margaret McDonald, Lori M Wozney, Ana Marissa Lagman Bartolome, Ian M Kronish, Allan Purdy, Jennifer N Stinson, Patrick J McGrath
{"title":"基于互联网的偏头痛认知行为疗法自我指导随机试验。","authors":"Anna Huguet, Sharlene Rozario, William Chaplin, Margaret McDonald, Lori M Wozney, Ana Marissa Lagman Bartolome, Ian M Kronish, Allan Purdy, Jennifer N Stinson, Patrick J McGrath","doi":"10.1017/cjn.2024.287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-guided Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (iCBT) for migraine interventions could improve access to care, but there is poor evidence of their efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A three-arm randomized controlled trial compared: iCBT focused on psychoeducation, self-monitoring and skills training (SPHERE), iCBT focused on identifying and managing personal headache triggers (PRISM) and a waitlist control. The primary treatment outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days at 4 months post-randomization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>428 participants were randomized (mean age = 30.1). 240 participants (56.2%) provided outcome data at 4 months. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with missing data imputed demonstrated that the proportion of responders with a ≥ 50% reduction was similar between combined iCBTs and waitlist (48.5/285, 17% vs. 16.6/143, 11.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.20), but analysis of completers showed both iCBT programs to be superior to the waitlist (24/108, 22.2% vs. 13/113, 11.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.047). ITT analysis with missing data imputed showed no difference between the two iCBTs (SPHERE: 24.8/143, 17.3% vs. PRISM: 23.7/142, 16.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.99). Uptake rates of the iCBTs were high (76.9% and 81.69% logged in at least once into SPHERE and PRISM, respectively), but adherence was low (out of those who logged in at least once, 19.01% [21/110] completed at least 50% modules in SPHERE and 7.76% [9/116] set a goal for trying out a given trigger-specific recommendation in PRISM). Acceptability ratings were intermediate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-guided iCBTs were not found to be superior in our primary ITT analysis. Low adherence could explain the lack of effects as completer analysis showed effects for both interventions. Enhancement of adherence should be a focus of future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":56134,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Randomized Trial of Self-Guided, Internet-Based, Cognitive Behavior Therapies for Migraine.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Huguet, Sharlene Rozario, William Chaplin, Margaret McDonald, Lori M Wozney, Ana Marissa Lagman Bartolome, Ian M Kronish, Allan Purdy, Jennifer N Stinson, Patrick J McGrath\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cjn.2024.287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-guided Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (iCBT) for migraine interventions could improve access to care, but there is poor evidence of their efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A three-arm randomized controlled trial compared: iCBT focused on psychoeducation, self-monitoring and skills training (SPHERE), iCBT focused on identifying and managing personal headache triggers (PRISM) and a waitlist control. The primary treatment outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days at 4 months post-randomization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>428 participants were randomized (mean age = 30.1). 240 participants (56.2%) provided outcome data at 4 months. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with missing data imputed demonstrated that the proportion of responders with a ≥ 50% reduction was similar between combined iCBTs and waitlist (48.5/285, 17% vs. 16.6/143, 11.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.20), but analysis of completers showed both iCBT programs to be superior to the waitlist (24/108, 22.2% vs. 13/113, 11.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.047). ITT analysis with missing data imputed showed no difference between the two iCBTs (SPHERE: 24.8/143, 17.3% vs. PRISM: 23.7/142, 16.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.99). Uptake rates of the iCBTs were high (76.9% and 81.69% logged in at least once into SPHERE and PRISM, respectively), but adherence was low (out of those who logged in at least once, 19.01% [21/110] completed at least 50% modules in SPHERE and 7.76% [9/116] set a goal for trying out a given trigger-specific recommendation in PRISM). Acceptability ratings were intermediate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-guided iCBTs were not found to be superior in our primary ITT analysis. Low adherence could explain the lack of effects as completer analysis showed effects for both interventions. Enhancement of adherence should be a focus of future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.287\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.287","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于互联网的自我指导认知行为疗法(iCBT)可改善偏头痛干预的可及性,但疗效不佳:基于互联网的自我指导认知行为疗法(iCBT)可改善偏头痛干预的可及性,但其疗效证据不足:一项三臂随机对照试验比较了:以心理教育、自我监控和技能培训为重点的 iCBT(SPHERE)、以识别和管理个人头痛诱因为重点的 iCBT(PRISM)和候补对照组。主要治疗结果为随机化后4个月每月头痛天数减少≥50%:428名参与者接受了随机治疗(平均年龄=30.1岁)。240名参与者(56.2%)提供了4个月的结果数据。对缺失数据进行估算的意向治疗(ITT)分析表明,iCBTs组合疗法和候选疗法的应答率降低≥50%的比例相似(48.5/285,17% vs. 16.6/143,11.6%,p = 0.20),但对完成者的分析表明,两种iCBT疗法均优于候选疗法(24/108,22.2% vs. 13/113,11.5%,p = 0.047)。对缺失数据进行估算的 ITT 分析表明,两种 iCBT 之间没有差异(SPHERE:24.8/143,17.3% vs. PRISM:23.7/142,16.7%,p = 0.99)。iCBT的使用率较高(分别有76.9%和81.69%的人至少登录过一次SPHERE和PRISM),但坚持率较低(在至少登录过一次的人中,有19.01% [21/110]的人至少完成了SPHERE中50%的模块,有7.76% [9/116]的人设定了尝试PRISM中特定触发建议的目标)。可接受性评级为中等:在我们的主要 ITT 分析中,未发现自我指导的 iCBT 具有优越性。由于完成者分析显示两种干预都有效果,因此坚持率低可能是缺乏效果的原因。提高依从性应该是未来研究的重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Randomized Trial of Self-Guided, Internet-Based, Cognitive Behavior Therapies for Migraine.

Background: Self-guided Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (iCBT) for migraine interventions could improve access to care, but there is poor evidence of their efficacy.

Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial compared: iCBT focused on psychoeducation, self-monitoring and skills training (SPHERE), iCBT focused on identifying and managing personal headache triggers (PRISM) and a waitlist control. The primary treatment outcome was a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days at 4 months post-randomization.

Results: 428 participants were randomized (mean age = 30.1). 240 participants (56.2%) provided outcome data at 4 months. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with missing data imputed demonstrated that the proportion of responders with a ≥ 50% reduction was similar between combined iCBTs and waitlist (48.5/285, 17% vs. 16.6/143, 11.6%, p = 0.20), but analysis of completers showed both iCBT programs to be superior to the waitlist (24/108, 22.2% vs. 13/113, 11.5%, p = 0.047). ITT analysis with missing data imputed showed no difference between the two iCBTs (SPHERE: 24.8/143, 17.3% vs. PRISM: 23.7/142, 16.7%, p = 0.99). Uptake rates of the iCBTs were high (76.9% and 81.69% logged in at least once into SPHERE and PRISM, respectively), but adherence was low (out of those who logged in at least once, 19.01% [21/110] completed at least 50% modules in SPHERE and 7.76% [9/116] set a goal for trying out a given trigger-specific recommendation in PRISM). Acceptability ratings were intermediate.

Conclusions: Self-guided iCBTs were not found to be superior in our primary ITT analysis. Low adherence could explain the lack of effects as completer analysis showed effects for both interventions. Enhancement of adherence should be a focus of future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.30%
发文量
330
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences is the official publication of the four member societies of the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation -- Canadian Neurological Society (CNS), Canadian Association of Child Neurology (CACN), Canadian Neurosurgical Society (CNSS), Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists (CSCN). The Journal is a widely circulated internationally recognized medical journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles. The Journal is published in January, March, May, July, September, and November in an online only format. The first Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences (the Journal) was published in 1974 in Winnipeg. In 1981, the Journal became the official publication of the member societies of the CNSF.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信