Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for posttraumatic stress disorder versus waitlist control: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

A brief intervention for PTSD versus treatment as usual: Study protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although existing treatment methods are effective in alleviating PTSD symptoms, several barriers to care exist, such as waiting times, avoidant tendencies, shame and stigma, potentially leading to fewer people seeking therapy or premature dropouts. A potential solution to battling these barriers is Brain Working Recursive Therapy (BWRT), a single-session exposure-oriented intervention for PTSD. Although not yet subjected to empirical investigation, clinical experiences suggest an often immediate and long-lasting effect following the intervention related to patient's symptomatology and functional abilities.

METHODS

The current study protocol outlines a plan to conduct the first non-inferiority randomized controlled trial aimed to explore the efficacy of BWRT compared to treatment as usual (TAU), operationalized as any evidence-based trauma treatment method administered in Norwegian out-patient clinics. Eighty-two participants will be allocated at a 1:1 ratio to one of the following treatment conditions: (1) BWRT or (2) treatment as usual. Participants will be compared on several variables, including changes in PTSD symptoms (primary objective), and changes in perceived quality of life, rumination, functional and cognitive ability (secondary objective). Data collection will take place baseline (T1), within three weeks post treatment (T2) and at 6-month follow-up (T3).

DISCUSSION

Should BWRT prove to be non-inferior to treatment as usual, this brief intervention may be an important contribution to future psychological treatment for PTSD, by making trauma treatment more accessible and battling current barriers to care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

191548, 24.05.2021. ClinicalTrials.gov PRS: Release Confirmation.

Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Therapist-delivered trauma-focused psychological therapies are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have become the accepted first-line treatments. Despite the established evidence-base for these therapies, they are not always widely available or accessible. Many barriers limit treatment uptake, such as the number of qualified therapists available to deliver the interventions; cost; and compliance issues, such as time off work, childcare, and transportation, associated with the need to attend weekly appointments. Delivering Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapy (I-C/BT) is an effective and acceptable alternative to therapist-delivered treatments for anxiety and depression.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of I-C/BT for PTSD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2020. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies and contacted the authors of included studies and other researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs of I-C/BT compared to face-to-face or Internet-based psychological treatment, psychoeducation, wait list, or care as usual. We included studies of adults (aged over 16 years), in which at least 70% of the participants met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, and entered data into Review Manager 5. The primary outcomes were severity of PTSD symptoms and dropouts. Secondary outcomes included diagnosis of PTSD after treatment, severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, adverse events, treatment acceptability, and quality of life. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data using a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where heterogeneity was present, in which case we used a random-effects model. We independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias and we evaluated the certainty of available evidence using the GRADE approach; we discussed any conflicts with at least one other review author, with the aim of reaching a unanimous decision.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 808 participants. Ten studies compared I-C/BT delivered with therapist guidance to a wait list control. Two studies compared guided I-C/BT with I-non-C/BT. One study compared guided I-C/BT with face-to-face non-C/BT. There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. I-C/BT compared with face-to-face non-CBT Very low-certainty evidence based on one small study suggested face-to-face non-CBT may be more effective than I-C/BT at reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment (MD 10.90, 95% CI 6.57 to 15.23; studies = 1, participants = 40). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between treatments (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.91 to 6.77; studies = 1, participants = 40; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure diagnosis of PTSD, severity of depressive or anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, or adverse events. I-C/BT compared with wait list Very low-certainty evidence showed that, compared with wait list, I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in PTSD post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.29; studies = 10, participants = 608). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between the I-C/BT and wait list groups (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; studies = 9, participants = 634; low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be no more effective than wait list at reducing the risk of a diagnosis of PTSD after treatment (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00; studies = 1, participants = 62; very low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of depression post-treatment (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.06; studies = 7, participants = 473; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence also suggested that I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.33; studies = 5, participants = 345). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse events were uncertain, as only one study reported an absence of adverse events. I-C/BT compared with I-non-C/BT There may be no evidence of a difference in PTSD symptoms post-treatment between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 82; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between dropout rates from the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.73; studies = 2, participants = 132; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment depressive symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 84; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment symptoms of anxiety between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.95; studies = 2, participants = 74; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse effects were uncertain, as it was not discernible whether adverse effects reported were attributable to the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. This review update found many planned and ongoing studies, which is encouraging since further work is required to establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.

Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Therapist-delivered trauma-focused psychological therapies are an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These have become the accepted first-line treatments for the disorder. Despite the established evidence-base for these therapies, they are not always widely available or accessible. Many barriers limit treatment uptake, such as the limited number of qualified therapists to deliver the interventions, cost, and compliance issues, such as time off work, childcare, and transportation, associated with the need to attend weekly appointments. Delivering cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) on the Internet is an effective and acceptable alternative to therapist-delivered treatments for anxiety and depression. However, fewer Internet-based therapies have been developed and evaluated for PTSD, and uncertainty surrounds the efficacy of Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapy (I-C/BT) for PTSD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of I-C/BT for PTSD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR) to June 2016 and identified four studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The CCMDCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. We ran an update search on 1 March 2018, and identified four additional completed studies, which we added to the analyses along with two that were previously awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs of I-C/BT compared to face-to-face or Internet-based psychological treatment, psychoeducation, wait list or care as usual. We included studies of adults (aged over 16 years or over), in which at least 70% of the participants met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We entered data into Review Manager 5 software. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data with a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where heterogeneity was present, in which case we used a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias; any conflicts were discussed with a third author, with the aim of reaching a unanimous decision.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 720 participants in the review. Eight of the studies compared I-C/BT delivered with therapist guidance to a wait list control. Two studies compared guided I-C/BT with I-non-C/BT. There was considerable heterogeneity among the included studies.Very low-quality evidence showed that, compared with wait list, I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in PTSD post-treatment (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.24; studies = 8, participants = 560). However, there was no evidence of a difference in PTSD symptoms when follow-up was less than six months (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.56; studies = 3, participants = 146). There may be little or no difference in dropout rates between the I-C/BT and wait list groups (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; studies = 8, participants = 585; low-quality evidence). I-C/BT was no more effective than wait list at reducing the risk of a diagnosis of PTSD after treatment (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00; studies = 1, participants = 62; very low-quality evidence). I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of depression both post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.05; studies = 5, participants = 425; very low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence also suggested that I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.36; studies = 4, participants = 305), and at follow-up less than six months (MD -12.59, 95% CI -20.74 to -4.44; studies = 1, participants = 42; very low-quality evidence). The effects of I-C/BT on quality of life were uncertain (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12; studies = 2, participants = 221; very low-quality evidence).Two studies found no difference in PTSD symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups when measured post-treatment (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 82; very low-quality evidence), or when follow-up was less than six months (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.57; studies = 2, participants = 65; very low-quality evidence). However, those who received I-C/BT reported their PTSD symptoms were better at six- to 12-month follow-up (MD -8.83, 95% CI -17.32 to -0.34; studies = 1, participants = 18; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found no difference in depressive symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups when measured post-treatment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 84; very low-quality evidence) or when follow-up was less than six months (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.71; studies = 2, participants = 61; very low-quality evidence). However, those who received I-C/BT reported their depressive symptoms were better at six- to 12-month follow-up (MD -8.34, 95% CI -15.83 to -0.85; studies = 1, participants = 18; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found no difference in symptoms of anxiety between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups when measured post-treatment (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.95; studies = 2, participants = 74; very low-quality evidence) or when follow-up was less than six months (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 60; very low-quality evidence). However, those who received I-C/BT reported their symptoms of anxiety were better at six- to 12-month follow-up (MD -8.05, 95% CI -15.20 to -0.90; studies = 1, participants = 18; very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported on cost-effectiveness or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the quality of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. Further work is required to: establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Applicability of Web-Based Interventions for Individuals with Depression and Quality of Life Impairment

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the applicability of web-based treatment programs for individuals with depression and quality of life impairments.

METHODS

We conducted database and manual searches using imprecise search-term strategy and inclusion criteria. Research published from 2005 to December 2015 was included in this study. Upon review, a total of 12 published papers on web-based intervention for individuals with depression were assessed eligible for this meta-analysis. Effect sizes were estimated for depression and quality of life.

RESULTS

The mean effect size of web-based treatment on depressive symptoms was 0.72. However, unlike the result showing medium to large effect size, the analysis on the quality of life did not yield adequate effects of web-based interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest robust benefits of employing web-based treatments for depressive symptoms. However, the adequacy of these relatively new intervention tools for individuals who suffer severe impairments of quality of life was found insufficient. The current study demonstrates the need to further develop web-based intervention techniques to improve overall functioning, as well as the clinical symptoms of patients with mental disorders.

iCanADAPT Early protocol: randomised controlled trial (RCT) of clinician supervised transdiagnostic internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (iCBT) for depression and/or anxiety in early stage cancer survivors -vs- treatment as usual

BACKGROUND

This RCT with two parallel arms will evaluate the efficacy of an internet-delivered transdiagnostic cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) intervention for the treatment of clinical depression and/or anxiety in early stage cancer survivors.

METHODS/DESIGN

Early stage cancer survivors will be recruited via the research arm of a not-for-profit clinical research unit and randomised to an intervention (iCBT) group or a 'treatment as usual' (TAU) control group. The minimum sample size for each group is 45 people (assuming effect size > 0.6, power of 80%, and alpha at .05), but 10% more will be recruited to account for attrition. A solitary or cumulative diagnosis(es) of Major Depressive Episode (current), Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Illness Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, and/or Adjustment disorder will be determined using modules from the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-5. Depression and anxiety levels with be measured via the total score of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS-T), the primary outcome measure. Secondary measures will include the Kessler 10 to measure general distress, the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) to measure the specific fear of cancer recurrence and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, General Version 4 (FACT-G) for self-report of physical, social, emotional and functional well-being. iCBT participants will complete the measures before lessons 1 and 5, at post-treatment and at 3-month follow-up. The TAU group will complete similar measures at weeks 1, 8 and 16 of the waiting period. Program efficacy will be determined using intent-to-treat mixed models. Maintenance of gains will be assessed at 3-month follow-up. Mediation analyses using PROCESS will be used to examine the association between change in depressive and anxious symptoms over time and changes in FCRI and FACT-G QOL in separate analysis.

DISCUSSION

This is the first RCT looking at iCBT specifically for clinical depression and/or anxiety in a cancer population. Findings will help to direct the role of iCBT in streamlined psycho-social care pathways.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000231448, registered 19th February 2016 ( www.anzctr.org.au ). This trial protocol is in compliance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.