一个简短的跨诊断组(采取控制过程)与个体低强度CBT治疗抑郁和焦虑的比较:一个随机的非劣等性试验。

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Lydia Morris, Karina Lovell, Phil McEvoy, Richard Emsley, Lesley-Anne Carter, Dawn Edge, Rachel Bates, Tanya Wallwork, Warren Mansell
{"title":"一个简短的跨诊断组(采取控制过程)与个体低强度CBT治疗抑郁和焦虑的比较:一个随机的非劣等性试验。","authors":"Lydia Morris,&nbsp;Karina Lovell,&nbsp;Phil McEvoy,&nbsp;Richard Emsley,&nbsp;Lesley-Anne Carter,&nbsp;Dawn Edge,&nbsp;Rachel Bates,&nbsp;Tanya Wallwork,&nbsp;Warren Mansell","doi":"10.1080/16506073.2022.2143418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few studies have examined brief transdiagnostic groups. The Take Control Course (TCC) was developed for patients with mild to moderate common mental health problems. We examined whether TCC is non-inferior to individual low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) in a single-blind individually randomised parallel non-inferiority trial. The primary outcomes were depression (PHQ9) and anxiety (GAD7) at 6-month follow-up (primary outcome point) and 12-month follow-up. The non-inferiority margin that we set, based on previous trials, corresponds to approximately 3 points on the PHQ9 and approximately 2.5 points on the GAD7. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses of 6-month data of 156 randomised patients indicated that TCC was non-inferior to individual low-intensity CBT on anxiety (ITT Coefficient = 0.24; 95% CI: -1.45 to 1.92; <i>d</i> = 0.04; <i>p</i> = .79), and depression (ITT Coefficient = 0.82; 95% CI: -1.06 to 2.69; <i>d</i> = 0.14; <i>p</i> = .39) outcomes, and functioning (ITT Coefficient = 0.69; 95% CI: -2.56 to 3.94; <i>d</i> = 0.08; <i>p</i> = .68). The findings at 12 months were inconclusive and require further testing. This randomised trial provides preliminary support that TCC is not less effective than short-term individual CBT within Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.</p>","PeriodicalId":10535,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A brief transdiagnostic group (the take control course) compared to individual low-intensity CBT for depression and anxiety: a randomized non-inferiority trial.\",\"authors\":\"Lydia Morris,&nbsp;Karina Lovell,&nbsp;Phil McEvoy,&nbsp;Richard Emsley,&nbsp;Lesley-Anne Carter,&nbsp;Dawn Edge,&nbsp;Rachel Bates,&nbsp;Tanya Wallwork,&nbsp;Warren Mansell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16506073.2022.2143418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Few studies have examined brief transdiagnostic groups. The Take Control Course (TCC) was developed for patients with mild to moderate common mental health problems. We examined whether TCC is non-inferior to individual low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) in a single-blind individually randomised parallel non-inferiority trial. The primary outcomes were depression (PHQ9) and anxiety (GAD7) at 6-month follow-up (primary outcome point) and 12-month follow-up. The non-inferiority margin that we set, based on previous trials, corresponds to approximately 3 points on the PHQ9 and approximately 2.5 points on the GAD7. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses of 6-month data of 156 randomised patients indicated that TCC was non-inferior to individual low-intensity CBT on anxiety (ITT Coefficient = 0.24; 95% CI: -1.45 to 1.92; <i>d</i> = 0.04; <i>p</i> = .79), and depression (ITT Coefficient = 0.82; 95% CI: -1.06 to 2.69; <i>d</i> = 0.14; <i>p</i> = .39) outcomes, and functioning (ITT Coefficient = 0.69; 95% CI: -2.56 to 3.94; <i>d</i> = 0.08; <i>p</i> = .68). The findings at 12 months were inconclusive and require further testing. This randomised trial provides preliminary support that TCC is not less effective than short-term individual CBT within Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2022.2143418\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2022.2143418","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

很少有研究考察过短暂的跨诊断组。服药控制课程(TCC)是为有轻至中度常见心理健康问题的患者开发的。我们在一项单盲随机平行非劣效性试验中检验了TCC是否优于个体低强度认知行为治疗(CBT)。随访6个月(主要转归点)和12个月的主要转归为抑郁(PHQ9)和焦虑(GAD7)。根据之前的试验,我们设定的非劣效性边际在PHQ9上约为3分,在GAD7上约为2.5分。意向治疗(ITT)和按方案(PP)分析156例随机患者6个月的数据表明,TCC对焦虑的治疗效果不低于个体低强度CBT (ITT系数= 0.24;95% CI: -1.45 ~ 1.92;d = 0.04;p = 0.79),抑郁(ITT系数= 0.82;95% CI: -1.06 ~ 2.69;d = 0.14;p = 0.39)结果和功能(ITT系数= 0.69;95% CI: -2.56 ~ 3.94;d = 0.08;p = .68)。12个月时的结果尚无定论,需要进一步检测。这项随机试验提供了初步支持,在改善心理治疗(IAPT)服务中,TCC并不比短期个体CBT更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A brief transdiagnostic group (the take control course) compared to individual low-intensity CBT for depression and anxiety: a randomized non-inferiority trial.

Few studies have examined brief transdiagnostic groups. The Take Control Course (TCC) was developed for patients with mild to moderate common mental health problems. We examined whether TCC is non-inferior to individual low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) in a single-blind individually randomised parallel non-inferiority trial. The primary outcomes were depression (PHQ9) and anxiety (GAD7) at 6-month follow-up (primary outcome point) and 12-month follow-up. The non-inferiority margin that we set, based on previous trials, corresponds to approximately 3 points on the PHQ9 and approximately 2.5 points on the GAD7. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses of 6-month data of 156 randomised patients indicated that TCC was non-inferior to individual low-intensity CBT on anxiety (ITT Coefficient = 0.24; 95% CI: -1.45 to 1.92; d = 0.04; p = .79), and depression (ITT Coefficient = 0.82; 95% CI: -1.06 to 2.69; d = 0.14; p = .39) outcomes, and functioning (ITT Coefficient = 0.69; 95% CI: -2.56 to 3.94; d = 0.08; p = .68). The findings at 12 months were inconclusive and require further testing. This randomised trial provides preliminary support that TCC is not less effective than short-term individual CBT within Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.

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
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the application of behavioural and cognitive sciences to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The journal publishes state-of-the-art scientific articles within: - clinical and health psychology - psychopathology - behavioural medicine - assessment - treatment - theoretical issues pertinent to behavioural, cognitive and combined cognitive behavioural therapies With the number of high quality contributions increasing, the journal has been able to maintain a rapid publication schedule, providing readers with the latest research in the field.
×
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