Out of pocket expenses in obsessive compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Despite anecdotal evidence that the out of pocket costs of OCD can be substantial in some cases, there is no evidence on how many people they affect, or the magnitude of these costs. AIMS: This paper explores the type and quantity of out of pocket expenses reported by a large sample of adults with OCD. METHODS: Data on out of pocket expenses were collected from participants taking part in the OCTET multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were aged 18+, meeting DSM-IV criteria for OCD, and scoring 16+ on the Yale Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Individual-level resource use data including a description and estimated cost of out of pocket expenses were measured using an adapted version of the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS): a questionnaire used to collect data on resource use. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (208/465) reported out of pocket expenses due to their OCD. The mean cost of out of pocket expenses was £19.19 per week (SD £27.56 SD), range £0.06-£224.00. CONCLUSIONS: Future economic evaluations involving participants with OCD should include out of pocket expenses, but careful consideration of alternative approaches to the collection and costing of this data is needed.

Low-intensity cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions for obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to waiting list for therapist-led cognitive-behaviour therapy: 3-arm randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is prevalent and without adequate treatment usually follows a chronic course. "High-intensity" cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) from a specialist therapist is current "best practice." However, access is difficult because of limited numbers of therapists and because of the disabling effects of OCD symptoms. There is a potential role for "low-intensity" interventions as part of a stepped care model. Low-intensity interventions (written or web-based materials with limited therapist support) can be provided remotely, which has the potential to increase access. However, current evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is insufficient. We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of 2 forms of low-intensity CBT prior to high-intensity CBT, in adults meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for OCD. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West-Lancaster (reference number 11/NW/0276). All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial. We conducted a 3-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial in primary- and secondary-care United Kingdom mental health services. All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual). Four hundred and seventy-three eligible patients were recruited and randomised. Patients had a median age of 33 years, and 60% were female. The majority were experiencing severe OCD. Patients received 1 of 2 low-intensity interventions: computerised CBT (cCBT; web-based CBT materials and limited telephone support) through "OCFighter" or guided self-help (written CBT materials with limited telephone or face-to-face support). Primary comparisons concerned OCD symptoms, measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale-Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and functioning. At 3 months, guided self-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean difference = -1.91, 95% CI -3.27 to -0.55). These effects did not reach a prespecified level of "clinically significant benefit." cCBT did not demonstrate significant benefit (adjusted mean difference = -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). At 12 months, neither guided self-help nor cCBT led to differences in OCD symptoms. Early access to low-intensity interventions led to significant reductions in uptake of high-intensity CBT over 12 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by the end of the trial, compared to 62% in supported cCBT and 57% in guided self-help. These reductions did not compromise longer-term patient outcomes. Data suggested small differences in satisfaction at 3 months, with patients more satisfied with guided self-help than supported cCBT. A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the level of access to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that providing low-intensity interventions does not lead to clinically significant benefits but may reduce uptake of therapist-led CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry ISRCTN73535163.

'One man's medicine is another man's poison': a qualitative study of user perspectives on low intensity interventions for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

BACKGROUND: Low intensity interventions based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) such as computerized therapy or guided self-help can offer effective and accessible care for mild to moderate mental health problems. However, critics argue that by reducing therapist input and the level of experience of the professionals delivering therapy, low intensity interventions deprive users of critical 'active ingredients'. Thus, while demand management arguments support the use of low intensity interventions for OCD, their integration into existing mental health services remains incomplete. Studies of user views of low intensity interventions can offer valuable insights to define their role and optimize their implementation in practice. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (n = 36) in adults with OCD explored user perspectives on the initiation, continuation and acceptability of two low intensity CBT interventions: guided self-help (6 h of professional support) and computerized CBT (1 h of professional support), delivered within the context of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial (ISRCTN73535163). RESULTS: While uptake was relatively high, continued engagement with the low intensity interventions was complex, with the perceived limitations of self-help materials impacting on users' willingness to continue therapy. The addition of professional support provided an acceptable compromise between the relative benefits of self-help and the need for professional input. However, individual differences were evident in the extent to which this compromise was considered necessary and acceptable. The need for some professional contact to manage expectations and personalize therapy materials was amplified in users with OCD, given the unique features of the disorder. However, individual differences were again evident regarding the perceived value of face-to-face support. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the findings demonstrate the need for flexibility in the provision of low intensity interventions for OCD, responsive to user preferences, as these preferences impact directly on engagement with therapy and perceptions of effectiveness.

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET).

BACKGROUND: The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. DESIGN: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. LIMITATIONS: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. CONCLUSIONS: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73535163. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.