Defining the Assessment and Treatment Competencies to Deliver Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavior Therapy: A Multi-Center Validation Study.

Despite the vastly increased dissemination of the low-intensity (LI) version of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for the treatment of anxiety and depression, no valid and reliable indices of the LI-CBT clinical competencies currently exist. This research therefore sought to develop and evaluate two measures: the low-intensity assessment competency scale (LIAC) and the low-intensity treatment competency scale (LITC). Inductive and deductive methods were used to construct the competency scales and detailed rating manuals were prepared. Two studies were then completed. The first study used a quantitative, fully-crossed design and the second a multi-center, quantitative longitudinal design. In study one, novice, qualified, and expert LI-CBT practitioners rated an LI-CBT assessment session (using the LIAC) and an LI-CBT treatment session (using the LITC). Study two used the LIAC and LITC across four training sites to analyze the competencies of LI-CBT practitioners over time, across raters, and in relation to the actor/patients' feedback concerning helpfulness, the alliance, and willingness to return. Both the LIAC and LITC were found to be single factor scales with good internal, test-retest reliability and reasonable inter-rater reliability. Both measures were sensitive to measuring change in clinical competence. The LIAC had good concurrent, criterion, discriminant, and predictive validity, while the LITC had good concurrent, criterion, and predictive validity, but limited discriminant validity. A score of 18 accurately delineated a minimum level of competence in LI-CBT assessment and treatment practice, with incompetent practice associated with patient disengagement. These observational ratings scales can contribute to the clinical governance of the burgeoning use of LI-CBT interventions for anxiety and depression in routine services and also in the methods of controlled studies.

The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS-62): Acceptance, feasibility, and initial psychometric properties in a UK student population.

BACKGROUND: The burden and severity of student mental health continue to increase in parallel with increasing financial pressures on students and services alike. There is a need for a student-specific measure of distress that acknowledges their unique context. This study examined the feasibility, acceptance, and initial psychometric properties of a US measure, the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS), in a UK student sample. METHODS: A sample of 294 UK help-seeking students from two universities completed the CCAPS-62 and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10) as a comparator. The factor solution and reliability of the CCAPS-62 were examined. Correlations and clinical boundaries were determined between the CCAPS-62 subscales and CORE-10, and comparisons were made with US published norms. RESULTS: The CCAPS-62 demonstrated a strong factor solution that matched the intended subscales. All subscales had good reliability and correlated significantly with the CORE-10. The agreement on caseness between the two measures was 92.8% with 86.3% reaching clinical threshold on both the CCAPS-62 and CORE-10. Severity was most noticeable for academic distress, depression, anxiety, and social anxiety. Compared to US data, UK students showed higher clinical severity for all psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The CCAPS-62 is a reliable and psychometrically valid assessment measure to use with UK students without revision. The overall distress indicated is similar to that of the CORE-10, but the individual subscales are more informative of specific student concerns including academic distress, social anxiety, and substance abuse. Potential benefits of administering a student-focused assessment measure in student counselling services are discussed. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: University students attending counselling in the UK demonstrate clinical severity for academic distress, depression, anxiety, and social anxiety. Compared to university students in the US, UK students present with higher clinical severity on all contextual measures of student psychological distress. It is advantageous for university counselling services to administer a student-specific clinical measure over measures intended for the general clinical population. CCAPS-62 is an acceptable, feasible, and psychometrically valid measure of student psychological distress that can be used in the UK without revision. It is important for university counselling services to continue to provide support from therapists that are trained and experienced in the university context over services intended for the general clinical population.

Cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive behaviour therapy in reducing symptoms of depression in adolescents: a trial-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: A substantial minority of adolescents suffer from depression and it is associated with increased risk of suicide, social and educational impairment, and mental health problems in adulthood. A recently conducted randomized controlled trial in England evaluated the effectiveness of a manualized universally delivered age-appropriate CBT programme in school classrooms. The cost-effectiveness of the programme for preventing low mood and depression for all participants from a health and social care sector perspective needs to be determined. METHODS: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis based on a cluster-randomized controlled trial (trial registration--ISRCTN 19083628) comparing classroom-based CBT with usual school provision of Personal Social and Health Education. Per-student cost of intervention was estimated from programme records. The study was undertaken in eight mixed-sex U.K. secondary schools, and included 3,357 school children aged 12 to 16 years (in the two trial arms evaluated in the cost-effectiveness analysis). The main outcome measures were individual self-reported data on care costs, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument) and symptoms of depression (Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire) at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Although there was lower quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (-.05 QALYs per person, 95% confidence interval -.09 to -.005, p = .03) with CBT, this is a 'clinically' negligible difference, which was not found in the complete case analyses. There was little evidence of any between-arm differences in SMFQ scores (0.19, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.95, p = .62), or costs (£142, 95% CI -£132 to £415, p = .31) per person for CBT versus usual school provision. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that the universal provision of classroom-based CBT is unlikely to be either more effective or less costly than usual school provision.

Could a brief assessment of negative emotions and self-esteem identify adolescents at current and future risk of self-harm in the community? A prospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is common in adolescents, but it is often unreported and undetected. Available screening tools typically ask directly about self-harm and suicidal ideation. Although in an ideal world, direct enquiry and open discussion around self-harm would be advocated, non-psychiatric professionals in community settings are often reluctant to ask about this directly and disclosure can be met with feeling of intense anxiety. Training non-specialist staff to directly ask about self-harm has limited effects suggesting that alternative approaches are required. This study investigated whether a targeted analysis of negative emotions and self-esteem could identify young adolescents at risk of self-harm in community settings. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a clinical trial from young people in school years 8-11 (aged 12-16) at eight UK secondary schools (N = 4503 at baseline, N = 3263 in prospective analysis). The Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, personal failure (Children's Automatic Thoughts Scale), and two items on self-harm were completed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Following a process of Principal Components Analysis, item reduction, and logistic regression analysis, three internally reliable factors were identified from the original measures that were independently associated with current and future self-harm; personal failure (3 items), physical symptoms of depression/anxiety (6 items), positive self-esteem (5 items). The summed score of these 14 items had good accuracy in identifying current self-harm (AUC 0.87 girls, 0.81 boys) and at six months for girls (0.81), and fair accuracy at six months for boys (AUC 0.74) and 12 months for girls (AUC 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: A brief and targeted assessment of negative emotions and self-esteem, focusing on factors that are strongly associated with current and future self-harm, could potentially be used to help identify adolescents who are at risk in community settings. Further research should assess the psychometric properties of the items identified and test this approach in more diverse community contexts.