ICBT can be delivered effectively using smartphones. (PsycINFO Database Record

BackgroundInternet-based cognitive–behavioural treatment (ICBT) for anxiety disorders has shown some promise, but no study has yet examined unguided ICBT in primary care. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated whether a transdiagnostic, unguided ICBT programme for anxiety disorders is effective in primary care settings, after a face-to-face consultation with a physician (MD). We hypothesized that care as usual (CAU) plus unguided ICBT would be superior to CAU in reducing anxiety and related symptoms among patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (PDA) and/or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).MethodAdults (n = 139) with at least one of these anxiety disorders, as reported by their MD and confirmed by a structured diagnostic interview, were randomized. Unguided ICBT was provided by a novel transdiagnostic ICBT programme (‘velibra’). Primary outcomes were generic measures, such as anxiety and depression symptom severity, and diagnostic status at post-treatment (9 weeks). Secondary outcomes included anxiety disorder-specific measures, quality of life, treatment adherence, satisfaction, and general psychiatric symptomatology at follow-up (6 months after randomization).ResultsCAU plus unguided ICBT was more effective than CAU at post-treatment, with small to medium between-group effect sizes on primary (Cohen's d = 0.41–0.47) and secondary (Cohen's d = 0.16–0.61) outcomes. Treatment gains were maintained at follow-up. In the treatment group, 28.2% of those with a SAD diagnosis, 38.3% with a PDA diagnosis, and 44.8% with a GAD diagnosis at pretreatment no longer fulfilled diagnostic criteria at post-treatment.ConclusionsThe unguided ICBT intervention examined is effective for anxiety disorders when delivered in primary care.

A growing body of evidence suggests that internet-based cognitive behavioural treatments (ICBT) are effective to treat social anxiety disorder (SAD). Whereas the efficacy of clinician-guided ICBT has been established, ICBT in a group format has not yet been systematically investigated. This three-arm RCT compared the efficacy of clinician-guided group ICBT (GT) with clinician guided individual ICBT (IT) and a wait-list (WL). A total of 149 individuals meeting the diagnostic criteria for SAD were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Primary endpoints were self-report measures of SAD and diagnostic status taken at baseline, after the twelve-week intervention and at six-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints were symptoms of depression, interpersonal problems and general symptomatology. At post-treatment, both active conditions showed superior outcome regarding SAD symptoms (GT vs. WL: d = 0.84-0.74; IT vs. WL: d = 0.94-1.22). The two active conditions did not differ significantly in symptom reduction (d = 0.12-0.26, all ps > 0.63), diagnostic response rate or attrition. Treatment gains were maintained at follow-up. The group format reduced weekly therapist time per participant by 71% (IT: 17 min, GT: 5 min). Findings indicate that a clinician-guided group format is a promising approach in treating SAD.

The findings of the present study reveal advantages and disadvantages of bCBT, which should be taken into account in the further implementation of this new treatment format.

Background Due to the dramatic measures accompanying isolation and the general uncertainty and fear associated with COVID-19, patients and relatives may be at high risk for adverse psychological outcomes. Until now there has been limited research focusing on the prevalence of psychological distress and associated factors in COVID-19 patients and their relatives. The objective of our study was to assess psychological distress in COVID-19 patients and their relatives 30 days after hospital discharge. Methods In this prospective observational cohort study at two Swiss tertiary-care hospitals we included consecutive adult patients hospitalized between March and June 2020 for a proven COVID-19 and their relatives. Psychological distress was defined as symptoms of anxiety and/or depression measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), i.e., a score of ≥8 on the depression and/or anxiety subscale. We further evaluated symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), defined as a score of ≥1.5 on the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). Results Among 126 included patients, 24 (19.1%) had psychological distress and 10 (8.7%) had symptoms of PTSD 30 days after hospital discharge. In multivariate logistic regression analyses three factors were independently associated with psychological distress in patients: resilience (OR 0.82; 95%CI 0.71 to 0.94; p = 0.005), high levels of perceived stress (OR 1.21; 95%CI 1.06 to 1.38; p = 0.006) and low frequency of contact with relatives (OR 7.67; 95%CI 1.42 to 41.58; p = 0.018). The model showed good discrimination, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.92. Among 153 relatives, 35 (22.9%) showed symptoms of psychological distress, and 3 (2%) of PTSD. For relatives, resilience was negatively associated (OR 0.85; 95%CI 0.75 to 0.96; p = 0.007), whereas perceived overall burden caused by COVID-19 was positively associated with psychological distress (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.31 to 2.25; p<0.001). The overall model also had good discrimination, with an AUC of 0.87. Conclusion A relevant number of COVID-19 patients as well as their relatives exhibited psychological distress 30 days after hospital discharge. These results might aid in development of strategies to prevent psychological distress in COVID-19 patients and their relatives.