The Effects of Patient Preference on Clinical Outcome, Satisfaction and Adherence Within the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Taking patient preference into consideration has received increased attention in the last decades. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of patient preference on clinical outcome, satisfaction and adherence regarding treatment of depression and anxiety. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for (cluster) randomized controlled trials. Twenty-six randomized controlled clinical trials were included, comprising 3670 participants, examining the effect of patient preference regarding treatment of anxiety and depression on clinical outcome, satisfaction and/or adherence. RESULTS: No effect of patient preference was found on clinical outcome [d = 0.06, 95% CI = (-0.03, 0.15), p = 0.16, n = 23 studies]. A small effect of patient preference was found on treatment satisfaction [d = 0.33, 95% CI = (0.08, 0.59), p = 0.01, n = 6 studies] and on treatment adherence [OR = 1.55, 95% CI = (1.28, 1.87), p < 0.001, n = 22 studies]. LIMITATIONS: Patient preference is a heterogeneous concept, future studies should strive to equalize operationalization of preference. Subgroup analyses within this study should be interpreted with caution because the amount of studies per analysed subgroup was generally low. Most studies included in this meta-analysis focused on patients with depression. The small number of studies (n = 6) on satisfaction, prevents us from drawing firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: While this meta-analysis did not find a positive effect of considering patient preference on clinical outcome, it was associated with slightly better treatment satisfaction and adherence. Accommodating preference of patients with anxiety and depression can improve treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020172556.

Barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking in adults with a depressive or anxiety disorder in a Western-European health care setting: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on barriers and facilitators regarding treatment-seeking of adults with depressive and anxiety disorders has been primarily conducted in the Anglosphere. This study aims to gain insight into treatment-seeking behaviour of adults with depressive and anxiety disorders in a European healthcare system. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants, aged ≥18 years and diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder according to DSM-IV. Participants were purposively sampled from an outpatient department for mental health care in the Netherlands. The seven steps of framework analysis were used to identify relevant themes emerging from the interviews. RESULTS: Data analysis suggested an interplay between individual aspects, personal social system, healthcare system and sociocultural context influences. Amongst the most relevant themes were mental health illiteracy, stigma, a negative attitude toward professional help, the influence of significant others and general practitioner, and waiting time. Financial barriers were not of relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a country with a well-developed mental health care system and in absence of financial barriers, there are many barriers to treatment-seeking in adult patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. National campaigns to increase awareness and decrease stigma in the general population, and to empower the social environment might reduce the treatment gap.

The Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Exposure-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Severe Anxiety Disorders, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, virtual reality exposure-based cognitive behavioral therapy (VRE-CBT) has shown good treatment results in (subclinical) anxiety disorders and seems to be a good alternative to exposure in vivo in regular cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, previous meta-analyses on the efficacy of VRE-CBT on anxiety disorders have included studies on specific phobias and subthreshold anxiety; therefore, these results may not be generalizable to patients with more severe and disabling anxiety disorders. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study is to determine the efficacy of VRE-CBT on more severe anxiety disorders, excluding specific phobias and subthreshold anxiety disorders. Meta-analyses will be conducted to examine the efficacy of VRE-CBT versus waitlist and regular CBT. Our secondary objectives are to examine whether the efficacy differs according to the type of anxiety disorder, type of recruitment, and type of VRE-CBT (virtual reality exposure either with or without regular CBT). Furthermore, attrition in VRE-CBT and CBT will be compared. METHODS: Studies published until August 20, 2020, were retrieved through systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase. We calculated the effect sizes (Hedges g) for the difference between the conditions and their 95% CIs for posttest and follow-up measurements in a random effects model. A separate meta-analysis was performed to compare attrition between the VRE-CBT and CBT conditions. RESULTS: A total of 16 trials with 817 participants were included. We identified 10 comparisons between VRE-CBT and a waitlist condition and 13 comparisons between VRE-CBT and a CBT condition. With regard to risk of bias, information on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and risk of bias for selective outcome reporting was often absent or unclear. The mean effect size of VRE-CBT compared with waitlist (nco=10) was medium and significant, favoring VRE-CBT (Hedges g=-0.490, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.16; P=.003). The mean effect size of VRE-CBT compared with CBT (nco=13) was small and nonsignificant, favoring CBT (Hedges g=0.083, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.30; P=.45). The dropout rates between VRE-CBT and CBT (nco=10) showed no significant difference (odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.49-1.27; P=.32). There were no indications of small study effects or publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study show that VRE-CBT is more effective than waitlist and as effective as CBT in the treatment of more severe anxiety disorders. Therefore, VRE-CBT may be considered a promising alternative to CBT for patients with more severe anxiety disorders. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the robustness of these findings.

The GET READY relapse prevention programme for anxiety and depression: a mixed-methods study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Since anxiety and depressive disorders often recur, self-management competencies are crucial for improving the long-term course of anxiety and depressive disorders. However, few relapse prevention programmes are available that focus on improving self-management. E-health combined with personal contact with a mental health professional in general practice might be a promising approach for relapse prevention. In this protocol, the GET READY (Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression) study will be described in which a relapse prevention programme is developed, implemented and evaluated. The aim of the study is to determine patients' usage of the programme and the associated course of their symptoms, to examine barriers and facilitators of implementation, and to assess patients' satisfaction with the programme. METHODS: Participants are discharged from mental healthcare services, and are in complete or partial remission. They receive access to an E-health platform, combined with regular contact with a mental health professional in general practices. Online questionnaires will be completed at baseline and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Also, semi-structured qualitative individual interviews and focus group interviews will be conducted with patients and mental health professionals. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods observational cohort study will provide insights into the use of a relapse prevention programme in relation to the occurrence of symptoms, as well as in its implementation and evaluation. Using the results of this study, the relapse prevention programme can be adapted in accordance with the needs of patients and mental health professionals. If this programme is shown to be acceptable, a randomized controlled trial may be conducted to test its efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR7574 ; 25 October 2018).

Assessing Costs Using the Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric Patients (TIC-P), TIC-P Mini and TIC-P Midi.

BACKGROUND: The Treatment Inventory Cost in Psychiatric patients (TIC-P) instrument is designed to measure societal costs in patients with psychiatric disorders and to be applied in economic evaluations. Efforts have been made to minimize respondents' burden by reducing the number of questions and meanwhile retaining the comprehensiveness of the instrument. Previously, a TIC-P Mini version and a TIC-P Midi version were developed and tested in a predominantly inpatient patient population. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The aims of this study are to examine the comprehensiveness of the abridged questionnaires in estimating the societal costs for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders and to assess the impact of productivity costs on the total costs. METHODS: The comprehensiveness of the abridged versions of the TIC-P was assessed in four populations: a group of primary care patients with anxiety disorders (n=175) and three groups of patients with major depressive disorders in various outpatient settings (n=140; n=125; and n=79). Comprehensiveness was measured using the proportion of total health care costs and productivity costs covered by the abridged versions compared to the full-length TIC-P. Costs were calculated according to the guidelines for costing studies using the Dutch costing manual. RESULTS: Our results showed that the TIC-P Mini covered 26%-64% of health care costs and the TIC-P Midi captured 54%-79% of health care costs. Health care costs in these populations were predominantly dispersed over primary care, outpatient hospital care, outpatient specialist care and inpatient hospital care. The TIC-P Midi and TIC-P Mini captured 22% and 0% of primary care costs respectively. In contrast, inpatient hospital care costs and outpatient specialist mental health care costs were almost fully included in the abridged versions. Costs due to lost productivity as measured by the full-length TIC-P were substantial, representing 38% to 92% of total costs. DISCUSSION: A reduction of the number of items resulted in a substantial loss in the ability to measure health care costs compared to the full-length TIC-P, because these outpatient populations consumed health care from a variety of health care providers. Two limitations of the study need to be stressed. Firstly, the number of patients in each of the four studies was relatively small. However, results were consistent over the four studies despite the small number of patients. Secondly, we did not take costs of medication into account. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: In developing mental health policy, it is important to include considerations on cost-effectiveness. Increasing the evidence on instruments to measure costs from a societal perspective may support policymakers to adopt a broader perspective. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: The TIC-P Mini is not suitable to capture health care costs in outpatients with anxiety or depressive disorders. The comprehensiveness of TIC-P Midi compared to the full-length TIC-P varied. The TIC-P Midi should therefore be revised in order to better capture costs in all patient groups.

Failure to Respond after Reinstatement of Antidepressant Medication: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Following remission of an anxiety disorder or a depressive disorder, antidepressants are frequently discontinued and in the case of symptom occurrence reinstated. Reinstatement of antidepressants seems less effective in some patients, but an overview is lacking. This systematic review aimed to provide insight into the magnitude and risk factors of response failure after reinstatement of antidepressants in patients with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHOD: PubMed, Embase, and trial registers were systematically searched for studies in which patients: (1) had an anxiety disorder, a depressive disorder, OCD, or PTSD and (2) experienced failure to respond after reinstatement of a previously effective antidepressant. RESULTS: Ten studies reported failure to respond following antidepressant reinstatement. The phenomenon was observed in 16.5% of patients with a depressive disorder, OCD, and social phobia and occurred in all common classes of antidepressants. The range of response failure was broad, varying between 3.8 and 42.9% across studies. No risk factors for failure to respond were investigated. The overall study quality was limited. CONCLUSION: Research investigating response failure is scarce and the study quality limited. Response failure occurred in a substantial minority of patients. Contributors to the relevance of this phenomenon are the prevalence of the investigated disorders, the number of patients being treated with antidepressants, and the occurrence of response failure for all common classes of antidepressants. This systematic review highlights the need for studies systematically investigating this phenomenon and associated risk factors.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management training for patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders: design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with anxiety or depressive disorders achieve no remission of their symptoms after evidence-based treatment algorithms. They develop a chronic course of the disorder. Current care for these patients usually consists of long-term supportive contacts with a community psychiatric nurse and pharmacological management by a psychiatrist. Data on the effectiveness of these treatments is lacking. A psychosocial rehabilitation approach, where self-management is an increasingly important part, could be more suitable. It focuses on the restoration of functioning and enhancement of patients' autonomy and responsibility. Treatment with this focus, followed by referral to primary care, may be more (cost-)effective. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial is designed for twelve participating specialized outpatient mental health services in the Netherlands. Patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders, currently receiving supportive care in specialized outpatient mental health care, are asked to participate. After inclusion, patients receive the baseline questionnaire and are randomized to the intervention group or the usual care control group. The intervention focuses on rehabilitation and self-management and is provided by a trained community psychiatric nurse, followed by referral to primary care. Measurements take place at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline. This study evaluates both the effectiveness (on quality of life, symptom severity, and empowerment), and cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. In addition, a questionnaire is designed to get insight in which self-management strategies patients use to manage their disorder, and in the experiences of patients with the change of care setting. DISCUSSION: In this study we evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management intervention for patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders in specialized outpatient mental health care. The results of this study may provide a first 'proof-of-concept' in this under-researched but important field, and might be relevant for a large group of patients in the context of a transition of the Dutch health care system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3335 , registered 7 March 2012.

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating collaborative care for anxiety disorders are recently emerging. A systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the effect of collaborative care for adult patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is therefore warranted. METHODS: A literature search was performed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Psycinfo, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials examining the effects of collaborative care for adult primary care patients with an anxiety disorder, compared to care as usual or another intervention. Synthesis methods: Standardized mean differences (SMD) on an anxiety scale closest to twelve months follow-up were calculated and pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3073 studies found, seven studies were included with a total of 2105 participants. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Collaborative care was superior to care as usual, with a small effect size (SMD = 0.35 95 % CI 0.14-0.56) for all anxiety disorders combined and a moderate effect size (SMD = 0.59, 95 % CI 0.41-0.78) in a subgroup analysis (five studies) on patients with panic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care seems to be a promising strategy for improving primary care for anxiety disorders, in particular panic disorder. However, the number of studies is still small and further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness in other anxiety disorders.

Effectiveness of collaborative stepped care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative stepped care (CSC) may be an appropriate model to provide evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care. METHODS: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, the effectiveness of CSC compared to care as usual (CAU) for adults with panic disorder (PD) or generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) in primary care was evaluated. Thirty-one psychiatric nurses who provided their services to 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands were randomised to deliver CSC (16 psychiatric nurses, 23 practices) or CAU (15 psychiatric nurses, 20 practices). CSC was provided by the psychiatric nurses (care managers) in collaboration with the general practitioner and a consultant psychiatrist. The intervention consisted of 3 steps, namely guided self-help, cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressants. Anxiety symptoms were measured with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: We recruited 180 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of PD or GAD, of whom 114 received CSC and 66 received usual primary care. On the BAI, CSC was superior to CAU [difference in gain scores from baseline to 3 months: -5.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.28 to -1.94; 6 months: -4.65, 95% CI -7.93 to -1.38; 9 months: -5.67, 95% CI -8.97 to -2.36; 12 months: -6.84, 95% CI -10.13 to -3.55]. CONCLUSIONS: CSC, with guided self-help as a first step, was more effective than CAU for primary care patients with PD or GAD.

Stepped care for depression is easy to recommend, but harder to implement: results of an explorative study within primary care in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental disorder with a high burden of disease which is mainly treated in primary care. It is unclear to what extent stepped care principles are applied in routine primary care. The first aim of this explorative study was to examine the gap between routine primary depression care and optimal care, as formulated in the depression guidelines. The second aim was to explore the facilitators and barriers that affect the provision of optimal care. METHODS: Optimal care was operationalised by indicators covering the entire continuum of depression care: from prevention to chronic depression. Routine care was investigated by interviewing general practitioners (GPs) individually and together with other mental health care providers about the depression care they delivered collaboratively. Qualitative analysis of transcripts was performed using thematic coding. Additionally, the GPs completed a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: Six GPs and 22 other (mostly primary) mental health care providers participated. The GPs and their primary care colleagues embraced a general stepped care approach. They offered psycho-education and counselling to mildly depressed patients. When the treatment effects were not satisfactory or patients were more severely depressed, the GPs offered, or referred to, psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy. Patients with a complex and severe depressive disorder were directly referred to specialised mental health care. However, GPs relied on their clinical judgment and rarely used instruments to assess and monitor the severity of depressive symptoms. Structured, evidence based interventions such as self-management and e-health were rarely offered to patients with depressive symptoms. Specific psychological interventions for relapse prevention or for chronically depressed patients were not available. A wide range of influencing factors for the provision of optimal depression care were put forward. Close collaboration with other mental health care professionals was considered an important factor for improvement by nearly all GPs. CONCLUSIONS: The management of depression in primary care seems in line with stepped care principles, although it can be improved by applying more elements of a stepped care approach. Collaboration between GPs and mental health care providers in primary care and secondary care should be enhanced.

Treatment Preferences of Adolescents and Young Adults with Depressive Symptoms: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Depression in adolescents and young adults is common and causes considerable disease burden while hampering their development, leading to adverse consequences in later life. Although treatment is available, young people are a vulnerable group regarding uptake and completion of treatment. To improve this, insight into youth's preferences for treatment is essential. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate patient preferences for depression treatment in a Dutch sample aged 16-24 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: The study was conducted in The Netherlands between October 2018 and June 2019, and included 236 adolescents and young adults with current depressive symptoms or previous treatment. The DCE included five attributes (treatment type, frequency of appointment, waiting time, effectiveness, evaluation of therapeutic alliance) with corresponding levels. Results were analysed using latent class analysis. RESULTS: Results show a general preference for individual psychotherapy, treatment with high frequency, high effectiveness, short waiting time and a standard evaluation of the therapeutic alliance ('click' with the therapist) early in treatment. Latent class analysis revealed three different patterns of preferences regarding treatment type and willingness to engage in therapy. The first class showed a strong preference for individual therapy. The second class, including relatively older, higher educated and treatment-experienced participants, preferred high frequency treatment and was more open to different forms of therapy. The third class, including lower educated, younger and treatment-naïve adolescents showed reluctance to engage in therapy overall and in group therapy specifically. CONCLUSION: In this DCE, three classes could be identified that share similar preferences regarding treatment effectiveness, waiting time and evaluation of the therapeutic alliance, but varied considerably in their preference for treatment type (individual, group, or combined psychotherapy) and their willingness to engage. The results from this study may inform mental health care providers and institutions and help optimize professional care for adolescents and young adults with depressive symptoms, improving engagement in this vulnerable group.

Collaborative stepped care v. care as usual for common mental disorders: 8-month, cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thus far collaborative stepped care (CSC) studies have not incorporated self-help as a first step. AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of CSC in the treatment of common mental disorders. METHOD: An 8-month cluster randomised controlled trial comparing CSC to care as usual (CAU) (Dutch Trial Register identifier NTR1224). The CSC consisted of a stepped care approach guided by a psychiatric nurse in primary care with the addition of antidepressants dependent on the severity of the disorder, followed by cognitive-behavioural therapy in mental healthcare. RESULTS: Twenty general practitioners (GPs) and 8 psychiatric nurses were randomised to provide CSC or CAU. The GPs recruited 163 patients of whom 85% completed the post-test measurements. At 4-month mid-test CSC was superior to CAU: 74.7% (n = 68) v. 50.8% (n = 31) responders (P = 0.003). At 8-month post-test and 12-month follow-up no significant differences were found as the patients in the CAU group improved as well. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment within a CSC model resulted in an earlier treatment response compared with CAU.

Screening high-risk patients and assisting in diagnosing anxiety in primary care: the Patient Health Questionnaire evaluated.

BACKGROUND: Questionnaires may help in detecting and diagnosing anxiety disorders in primary care. However, since utility of these questionnaires in target populations is rarely studied, the Patient Health Questionnaire anxiety modules (PHQ) were evaluated for use as: a) a screener in high-risk patients, and/or b) a case finder for general practitioners (GPs) to assist in diagnosing anxiety disorders. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed in 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands. The added value of the PHQ was assessed in two samples: 1) 170 patients at risk of anxiety disorders (or developing them) according to their electronic medical records (high-risk sample); 2) 141 patients identified as a possible 'anxiety case' by a GP (GP-identified sample). All patients completed the PHQ and were interviewed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric interview to classify DSM-IV anxiety disorders. Psychometric properties were calculated, and a logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic value of the PHQ. RESULTS: Using only the screening questions of the PHQ, the area under the curve was 83% in the high-risk sample. In GP-identified patients the official algorithm showed the best characteristics with an area under the curve of 77%. Positive screening questions significantly increased the odds of an anxiety disorder diagnosis in high-risk patients (odds ratio = 23.4; 95% confidence interval 6.9 to 78.8) as did a positive algorithm in GP-identified patients (odds ratio = 13.9; 95% confidence interval 3.8 to 50.6). CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ screening questions can be used to screen for anxiety disorders in high-risk primary care patients. In GP-identified patients, the benefit of the PHQ is less evident.

Understanding and preventing nonadherence and treatment dropout in adolescents and young adults with anxiety and depressive disorders.

Dropout from psychological or pharmacological treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders is common. It is especially problematic in adolescents and young adults because of the adverse consequences for their development. Reasons for treatment dropout can be divided into therapy-process related factors, attitudinal aspects, and practical issues. Adjusting treatment to patient preferences and shared decision making, improving the therapeutic alliance, and interventions such as (family) psychoeducation, motivational interviewing, and help with practical issues are promising strategies to optimize engagement and adherence.

Baseline Severity as a Moderator of the Waiting List-Controlled Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With Symptom Change in Social Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Importance: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) can be adequately treated with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, there is a large gap in knowledge on factors associated with prognosis, and it is unclear whether symptom severity predicts response to CBT for SAD. Objective: To examine baseline SAD symptom severity as a moderator of the association between CBT and symptom change in patients with SAD. Data Sources: For this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA), PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 1990, to January 13, 2023. Primary search topics were social anxiety disorder, cognitive behavior therapy, and randomized controlled trial. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing CBT with being on a waiting list and using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) in adults with a primary clinical diagnosis of SAD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Authors of included studies were approached to provide individual-level data. Data were extracted by pairs of authors following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. An IPDMA was conducted using a 2-stage approach for the association of CBT with change in LSAS scores from baseline to posttreatment and for the interaction effect of baseline LSAS score by condition using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the baseline to posttreatment change in symptom severity measured by the LSAS. Results: A total of 12 studies including 1246 patients with SAD (mean [SD] age, 35.3 [10.9] years; 738 [59.2%] female) were included in the meta-analysis. A waiting list-controlled association between CBT and pretreatment to posttreatment LSAS change was found (b = -20.3; 95% CI, -24.9 to -15.6; P < .001; Cohen d = -0.95; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.73). Baseline LSAS scores moderated the differences between CBT and waiting list with respect to pretreatment to posttreatment symptom reductions (b = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.06; P = .009), indicating that individuals with severe symptoms had larger waiting list-controlled symptom reductions after CBT (Cohen d = -1.13 [95% CI, -1.39 to -0.88] for patients with very severe SAD; Cohen d = -0.54 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.29] for patients with mild SAD). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and IPDMA, higher baseline SAD symptom severity was associated with greater (absolute but not relative) symptom reductions after CBT in patients with SAD. The findings contribute to personalized care by suggesting that clinicians can confidently offer CBT to individuals with severe SAD symptoms.

Psychological interventions to prevent relapse in anxiety and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to establish the effectiveness of psychological relapse prevention interventions, as stand-alone interventions and in combination with maintenance antidepressant treatment (M-ADM) or antidepressant medication (ADM) discontinuation for patients with remitted anxiety disorders or major depressive disorders (MDD). METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological relapse prevention interventions to treatment as usual (TAU), with the proportion of relapse/recurrence and/or time to relapse/recurrence as outcome measure. RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs were included. During a 24-month period, psychological interventions significantly reduced risk of relapse/recurrence for patients with remitted MDD (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68-0.86, p<0.001). This effect persisted with longer follow-up periods, although these results were less robust. Also, psychological interventions combined with M-ADM significantly reduced relapse during a 24-month period (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, p = 0.010), but this effect was not significant for longer follow-up periods. No meta-analysis could be performed on relapse prevention in anxiety disorders, as only two studies focused on relapse prevention in anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with remitted MDD, psychological relapse prevention interventions substantially reduce risk of relapse/recurrence. It is recommended to offer these interventions to remitted MDD patients. Studies on anxiety disorders are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018103142.

Usage Intensity of a Relapse Prevention Program and Its Relation to Symptom Severity in Remitted Patients With Anxiety and Depression: Pre-Post Study.

BACKGROUND: Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients' preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients' preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. METHODS: The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (ß=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (ß=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although the core modules of the GET READY program were used by most of the patients and all patients saw an MHP at least once, usage decreased quickly over time. Most patients remained stable while participating in the study. The significant association between the frequency of contact and the course of symptoms most likely indicates that those who received more support had more symptoms, and thus, it is questionable whether the support offered by the program was sufficient to prevent these patients from relapsing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6.

Is the Beck Anxiety Inventory a good tool to assess the severity of anxiety? A primary care study in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA).

BACKGROUND: Appropriate management of anxiety disorders in primary care requires clinical assessment and monitoring of the severity of the anxiety. This study focuses on the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) as a severity indicator for anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders (social phobia, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia or generalized anxiety disorder), depressive disorders or no disorder (controls). METHODS: Participants were 1601 primary care patients participating in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Regression analyses were used to compare the mean BAI scores of the different diagnostic groups and to correct for age and gender. RESULTS: Patients with any anxiety disorder had a significantly higher mean score than the controls. A significantly higher score was found for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia compared to patients with agoraphobia only or social phobia only. BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid anxiety disorder and in patients with an anxiety disorder with a co-morbid depressive disorder were significantly higher than BAI scores in patients with an anxiety disorder alone or patients with a depressive disorder alone. Depressed and anxious patients did not differ significantly in their mean scores. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the BAI may be used as a severity indicator of anxiety in primary care patients with different anxiety disorders. However, because the instrument seems to reflect the severity of depression as well, it is not a suitable instrument to discriminate between anxiety and depression in a primary care population.

Reasons for Participation and Nonparticipation in Psychological Relapse Prevention for Anxiety and Depression: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depressive disorders frequently recur, but participation in effective psychological interventions to prevent relapse is limited. The reasons for nonparticipation are largely unknown, hampering successful implementation. The aims of this study were: (1) to investigate reasons why patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders refuse cognitive-behavioral therapy relapse prevention interventions (RPIs), (2) to compare these reasons with reasons to participate, and (3) to gain insight into patients' preferences regarding relapse prevention. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in which data were gathered from 52 semistructured interviews with patients who either refused or agreed to participate in psychological relapse prevention. The constant comparative method was used. RESULTS: The data showed that those who refused to participate (1) did have knowledge about relapse risks in general, (2) but did not relate this risk to themselves, and therefore, did not feel the need for relapse prevention, or (3) declined to participate for logistical reasons or reasons related to the content of the intervention. Preferences concerning the form and content of RPIs were very diverse. CONCLUSIONS: Psychoeducation on relapse should be provided to patients to help them relate recurrence risks to themselves. RPIs should also be individually tailored.