Characteristics of complex posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in young people with PTSD following multiple trauma exposure.

BACKGROUND: Complex PTSD (CPTSD) is a relatively new diagnosis. The objective of the present study was to investigate how trauma characteristics, comorbid psychopathology and cognitive and social factors experienced by children and adolescents with a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis following exposure to multiple traumatic events differs between those who meet the criteria for CPTSD and those who do not. METHOD: The present research used baseline data from the DECRYPT trial (BMJ Open, 2021, 11, e047600). Participants (n = 120) were aged 8-17 years and had exposure to multiple traumas and a PTSD diagnosis. The data collected comprised self-report and parent/caregiver-report questionnaires and interviews. Three primary analyses were conducted, comparing number of trauma types, prevalence of sexual trauma and prevalence of intrafamilial abuse between the CPTSD and PTSD-only groups. A range of comorbid psychopathology and cognitive and social factors were compared between the groups in an exploratory secondary analysis. All analyses were preregistered. RESULTS: The CPTSD group (n = 72, 60%) had a significantly higher frequency of sexual trauma than the PTSD-only group (n = 48, 40%). The groups did not significantly differ on number of trauma types or prevalence of intrafamilial abuse. From the secondary analysis, the CPTSD group were found to have significantly higher scores on measures of negative post-traumatic cognitions, depression and panic. These results were replicated in correlation analyses using a continuous measure of CPTSD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of youth exposed to multiple traumatic events met criteria for CPTSD. Sexual trauma appears to be related to CPTSD symptoms. Youth with CPTSD appear to have greater severity of comorbid depression and panic symptoms, as well as more negative post-traumatic cognitions. Further investigation could focus on the directionality and mechanisms for these associations.

Improving the mental health and mental health support available to adolescents in out-of-home care via Adolescent-Focused Low-Intensity Life Story Work: a realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Life Story Work (LSW) is used to promote the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents living in out-of-home care. LSW should be offered to all but is conventionally delivered in high-intensity ways. Low-intensity approaches are more accessible but there is significant variation and little guidance for supporting adolescents. We aimed to create guidance for Adolescent-Focused Low-Intensity LSW. DESIGN: Realist review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Sociology Collection (ProQuest), CINAHL, CDAS, Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI), Social Care Online and grey literature sources. Searches were performed between December 2021 and March 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents on children and adolescents in care, LSW and/or low-intensity interventions to improve mental health were included. Documents focusing on parenting style and contact with birth family were excluded. ANALYSIS: Documents were analysed using a realist logic of analysis. In consultation with Content Expert Groups (comprising professionals and care leavers), we developed an initial programme theory. Data relating to and challenging the initial programme theory were extracted and context-mechanism-outcome-configurations developed, critiqued and refined in an iterative fashion. Interpretations were drawn from context-mechanism-outcome-configurations to enhance the programme theory. RESULTS: 75 documents contributed to the analysis. Generally, studies were small-scale and lacked in-depth methods and evaluation descriptions. Findings indicated important factors contribute to the development of high-quality Adolescent-Focused Low-Intensity LSW. Adolescent-Focused Low-Intensity LSW should be person-centred, begin in the now, involve co-construction, record everyday positive life events and be supported by trained carer(s). Context-mechanism-outcome-configurations relating to these themes are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Using this knowledge we developed initial practice guidance to support social care to deliver better quality Adolescent-Focused Low-Intensity LSW more consistently. To address gaps in our knowledge about the impact of Adolescent-Focused Low-Intensity LSW, further primary research is needed to strengthen understandings of how this intervention works (or not) in different contexts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021279816.

Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach.

INTRODUCTION: Transition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: MINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: MINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293255.

Cognitive Remediation Works But How Should We Provide It? An Adaptive Randomized Controlled Trial of Delivery Methods Using a Patient Nominated Recovery Outcome in First-Episode Participants.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Cognitive remediation (CR) benefits cognition and functioning in psychosis but we do not know the optimal level of therapist contact, so we evaluated the potential benefits of different CR modes. STUDY DESIGN: A multi-arm, multi-center, single-blinded, adaptive trial of therapist-supported CR. Participants from 11 NHS early intervention psychosis services were independently randomized to Independent, Group, One-to-One, or Treatment-as-usual (TAU). The primary outcome was functional recovery (Goal Attainment Scale [GAS]) at 15-weeks post randomization. Independent and TAU arms were closed after an interim analysis, and three informative contrasts tested (Group vs One-to-One, Independent vs TAU, Group + One-to-One vs TAU). Health economic analyses considered the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). All analyses used intention-to-treat principles. STUDY RESULTS: We analyzed 377 participants (65 Independent, 134 Group, 112 One-to-One, 66 TAU). GAS did not differ for Group vs One-to-One: Cohen's d: 0.07, -0.25 to 0.40 95% CI, P = .655; Independent vs TAU: Cohen's d: 0.07, -0.41 to 0.55 95% CI, P = .777. GAS and the cognitive score improved for Group + One-to-One vs TAU favoring CR (GAS: Cohen's d: 0.57, 0.19-0.96 95% CI, P = .003; Cognitive score: Cohens d: 0.28, 0.07-0.48 95% CI, P = .008). The QALY costs were £4306 for Group vs TAU and £3170 for One-to-One vs TAU. Adverse events did not differ between treatment methods and no serious adverse events were related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Both active therapist methods provided cost-effective treatment benefiting functional recovery in early psychosis and should be adopted within services. Some individuals benefited more than others so needs further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14678860 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14678860Now closed.

One session treatment (OST) is equivalent to multi-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with specific phobias (ASPECT): results from a national non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. METHODS: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months. RESULTS: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. CONCLUSIONS: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive-behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period. OBJECTIVE: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive-behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations. SETTINGS: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 7-16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive-behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive-behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive-behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment -0.123, 95% confidence interval -0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference -0.204, 95% confidence interval -0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive-behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A phobia is an intense, ongoing fear of an everyday object or situation. The phobia causes distress and the person with the phobia avoids that object or situation. Many children and young people have phobias that affect their daily lives. Cognitive­behavioural therapy helps by changing what people do or think when they have a phobia and is the most common treatment approach. However, cognitive­behavioural therapy is expensive, takes time and is not always easy to get. Different treatments are needed to help children and young people with specific phobias. One such therapy is one-session treatment, which works in similar ways to cognitive­behavioural therapy but takes place over one main 3-hour session. Our study, called ASPECT (Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial), compared these two treatments to examine whether or not one-session treatment is as effective as cognitive­behavioural therapy. Overall, 274 children and young people aged 7­16 years from 26 sites nationally helped with our research, of whom 268 received either cognitive­behavioural therapy or one-session treatment. The results at 6 months found that one-session treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy worked as well as each other for treating phobias in children and young people. We also found evidence that one-session treatment is cheaper than cognitive­behavioural therapy. We spoke with children and young people, their parents/guardians and the therapists of the single-session treatment, and we found one-session treatment to be acceptable for their needs. Future research could explore how to make one-session treatment more easily available for children and young people with specific phobias because it can save time and money, and works just as well as cognitive­behavioural therapy.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention. AIMS: We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone. METHOD: A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Social recovery therapy for young people with emerging severe mental illness: the Prodigy RCT.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Without intervention, their social problems can persist and have large economic and personal costs. Thus, more effective evidence-based interventions are needed. Social recovery therapy is an individual therapy incorporating cognitive-behavioural techniques to increase structured activity as guided by the participant's goals. OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to test whether or not social recovery therapy provided as an adjunct to enhanced standard care over 9 months is superior to enhanced standard care alone. Enhanced standard care aimed to provide an optimal combination of existing evidence-based interventions. DESIGN: A pragmatic, single-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial was conducted in three UK centres: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants were aged 16-25 years with persistent social disability, defined as < 30 hours per week of structured activity with social impairment for at least 6 months. Additionally, participants had severe and complex mental health problems, defined as at-risk mental states for psychosis or non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems indicated by a Global Assessment of Functioning score ≤ 50 persisting for ≥ 6 months. Two hundred and seventy participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either enhanced standard care plus social recovery therapy or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome was weekly hours spent in structured activity at 15 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included subthreshold psychotic, negative and mood symptoms. Outcomes were collected at 9 and 15 months post randomisation, with maintenance assessed at 24 months. RESULTS: The addition of social recovery therapy did not significantly increase weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months (primary outcome treatment effect -4.44, 95% confidence interval -10.19 to 1.31). We found no evidence of significant differences between conditions in secondary outcomes at 15 months: Social Anxiety Interaction Scale treatment effect -0.45, 95% confidence interval -4.84 to 3.95; Beck Depression Inventory-II treatment effect -0.32, 95% confidence interval -4.06 to 3.42; Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States symptom severity 0.29, 95% confidence interval -4.35 to 4.94; or distress treatment effect 4.09, 95% confidence interval -3.52 to 11.70. Greater Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States for psychosis scores reflect greater symptom severity. We found no evidence of significant differences at 9 or 24 months. Social recovery therapy was not estimated to be cost-effective. The key limitation was that missingness of data was consistently greater in the enhanced standard care-alone arm (9% primary outcome and 15% secondary outcome missingness of data) than in the social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care arm (4% primary outcome and 9% secondary outcome missingness of data) at 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy as an adjunct to enhanced standard care. Both arms made large improvements in primary and secondary outcomes. Enhanced standard care included a comprehensive combination of evidence-based pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions. Some results favoured enhanced standard care but the majority were not statistically significant. Future work should identify factors associated with the optimal delivery of the combinations of interventions that underpin better outcomes in this often-neglected clinical group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47998710. 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. 25, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Their problems are often long-standing and they often have difficulty doing 'structured activity', such as work, sports and leisure activities (e.g. going shopping or to the cinema). They often avoid such activities because of anxiety or low mood. Other barriers may include financial and practical issues, and stigma from activity providers. Non-participation in structured activity increases the risk that mental health problems will continue and prevent these young people from reaching meaningful goals. We tested whether or not social recovery therapy might help. This is a talking and activity therapy, in which young people (participants) work individually with a social recovery therapy therapist. Social recovery therapy aims to help participants identify what activities they would like to do, practise spending more time doing them, and work through barriers to maintaining increased activity. By improving structured activity, young people feel more hopeful and better able to manage their symptoms. However, social recovery therapy has never been evaluated properly using the best research methods. The best way to evaluate treatments like this is a randomised controlled trial in which participants are allocated by chance, like tossing a coin, to have the new therapy or not to have the therapy. Both groups are followed up for a period to see if the new therapy works. We tested social recovery therapy in this way. We also tested whether or not it was cost-effective. We recruited 270 16- to 25-year-old participants in Sussex, East Anglia and Manchester. Participants had non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems (not psychosis) and were doing < 30 hours of structured activity per week at the start of the study. All participants had enhanced standard care. This involved standard NHS treatment plus a full assessment and feedback from the study team, and a best practice guide to local support services that encouraged the best provision of standard evidence-based interventions. Half of the participants were randomly allocated to have social recovery therapy in addition to enhanced standard care over 9 months. All participants were invited to assessments 9, 15 and 24 months later. Therapists recorded the tasks and activities undertaken with participants. We asked both participants and therapists what they thought of the trial and the social recovery therapy. We found no evidence that adding social recovery therapy improved outcomes. Participants in both arms made large and clinically worthwhile improvements in structured activity and mental health outcomes. If anything, there was some evidence that people allocated to enhanced standard care improved more than those allocated to social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care. The differences were small, however, and could have occurred by chance.

Prevention and treatment of long-term social disability amongst young people with emerging severe mental illness with social recovery therapy (The PRODIGY Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people who have social disability associated with severe and complex mental health problems are an important group in need of early intervention. Their problems often date back to childhood and become chronic at an early age. Without intervention, the long-term prognosis is often poor and the economic costs very large. There is a major gap in the provision of evidence-based interventions for this group, and therefore new approaches to detection and intervention are needed. This trial provides a definitive evaluation of a new approach to early intervention with young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems using social recovery therapy (SRT) over a period of 9 months to improve mental health and social recovery outcomes. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, single blind, superiority randomised controlled trial. It is conducted in three sites in the UK: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants are aged 16 to 25 and have both persistent and severe social disability (defined as engaged in less than 30 hours per week of structured activity) and severe and complex mental health problems. The target sample size is 270 participants, providing 135 participants in each trial arm. Participants are randomised 1:1 using a web-based randomisation system and allocated to either SRT plus optimised treatment as usual (enhanced standard care) or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome is time use, namely hours spent in structured activity per week at 15 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes assess typical mental health problems of the group, including subthreshold psychotic symptoms, negative symptoms, depression and anxiety. Time use, secondary outcomes and health economic measures are assessed at 9, 15 and 24 months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: This definitive trial will be the first to evaluate a novel psychological treatment for social disability and mental health problems in young people presenting with social disability and severe and complex non-psychotic mental health problems. The results will have important implications for policy and practice in the detection and early intervention for this group in mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47998710 (registered 29/11/2012).

Computerised therapy for depression with clinician vs. assistant and brief vs. extended phone support: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) involves standardised, automated, interactive self-help programmes delivered via a computer. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have shown than cCBT reduces depressive symptoms as much as face-to-face therapy and more than waiting lists or treatment as usual. cCBT's efficacy and acceptability may be influenced by the "human" support offered as an adjunct to it, which can vary in duration and can be offered by people with different levels of training and expertise. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-by-two factorial RCT investigating the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of cCBT supplemented with 12 weekly phone support sessions are either brief (5-10 min) or extended (20-30 min) and are offered by either an expert clinician or an assistant with no clinical training. Adults with non-suicidal depression in primary care can self-refer into the study by completing and posting to the research team a standardised questionnaire. Following an assessment interview, eligible referrals have access to an 8-session cCBT programme called Beating the Blues and are randomised to one of four types of support: brief-assistant, extended-assistant, brief-clinician or extended-clinician.A sample size of 35 per group (total 140) is sufficient to detect a moderate effect size with 90% power on our primary outcome measure (Work and Social Adjustment Scale); assuming a 30% attrition rate, 200 patients will be randomised. Secondary outcome measures include the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories and the PHQ-9 and GAD-7. Data on clinical outcomes, treatment usage and patient experiences are collected in three ways: by post via self-report questionnaires at week 0 (randomisation) and at weeks 12 and 24 post-randomisation; electronically by the cCBT system every time patients log-in; by phone during assessments, support sessions and exit interviews. DISCUSSION: The study's factorial design increases its efficiency by allowing the concurrent investigation of two types of adjunct support for cCBT with a single sample of participants. Difficulties in recruitment, uptake and retention of participants are anticipated because of the nature of the targeted clinical problem (depression impairs motivation) and of the studied interventions (lack of face-to-face contact because referrals, assessments, interventions and data collection are completed by phone, computer or post). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98677176.