Positive psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy in anxiety patients - A study protocol for a randomized control trial in an online group setting.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety disorders are common and debilitating which is why treatment is so important. According to the guidelines, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has the highest level of effectiveness among psychotherapeutic treatments and is the recommended procedure. However, not everyone responds well or at all to CBT which makes a wider range of therapy options valuable. Positive Psychotherapy (PPT) comes to mind as an alternative with its strength-based approach focusing on enhancing well-being and life satisfaction. Additionally, it has not yet been extensively studied how the processes that occur during treatment sessions and between treatment sessions effect treatment outcome. Thus, to lessen the lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of PPT as an anxiety treatment the planned study examines and compares the effectiveness of CBT and PPT as well as the effect of intrasession and intersession processes of the two therapy approaches. METHOD: The study is in the planning stage and consists of an efficacy and a process study. The efficacy study is a randomized controlled comparative study of patients with anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety disorder and/or panic disorder with or without agoraphobia) with two active treatment conditions (PPT and CBT) and a control group (CG; positive psychotherapy with minimal therapeutic supervision) in an online group setting. There are three measurement time points: before treatment begins (T0), at the end of the ten-week treatment (T1), and a follow-up after three months (T2). The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of PPT and CBT in the treatment of anxiety disorders, and to compare the efficacy of online-based PPT with minimal therapeutic supervision and online-based PPT with intensive therapeutic supervision in the treatment of anxiety disorders. The process study will be used to evaluate both the intrasession processes and the intersession processes of the therapy in the two intervention groups. In addition, the process variables that predict the success of the therapy and the extent to which PPT and CBT differ in the therapy processes will be tested. The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (№ DRKS00027521). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled comparative study to examine the effectiveness of CBT and PPT for anxiety disorders in an online group setting.

[General practice care for patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A rapid review as part of the RELIEF project]. / Hausärztliche Versorgung von Patient:innen mit chronischen nicht-tumorbedingten Schmerzen: ein Rapid Review im Rahmen des RELIEF-Projekts.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one fifth of the German population suffers from chronic pain, which is often associated with limitations in coping with everyday life, social isolation and psychological comorbidities such as anxiety and depression. The importance of a treatment approach that considers biological, psychological, and social factors (bio-psycho-social model) as well as non-drug interventions is emphasized in current guidelines, but presents challenges for primary care practices. To support the implementation of evidence-based best practice recommendations, the RELIEF project (Resource-oriented case management to implement recommendations for patients with chronic pain and frequent use of analgesics in general practices) aims to develop a case management program for the primary care of patients with chronic non-tumor pain. METHODS: Prior to intervention development, a rapid review was conducted to identify best practice recommendations for the care of patients with chronic non-tumor pain, barriers and strategies to their implementation, and gaps in care in current guidelines and literature. Selective searches of guidelines, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, bibliographies of relevant publications, and the gray literature focused on assessment and monitoring, education, promotion of self-care, and rational pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: Numerous recommendations on assessment and monitoring were identified, but only a few studies examined their feasibility in primary care practices. Guidelines contained few specific recommendations on content and format of patient education on chronic pain. Recommendations for non-drug self-care measures were mainly related to physical activity, relaxation techniques, behavioral therapy techniques and external applications. Especially for the area of physical activity, numerous barriers but also strategies for a successful implementation could be identified. DISCUSSION: In a potential primary care model for patients with chronic non-tumor pain, pain assessment should aim to identify patients who need support in implementing medication and non-medication interventions in the primary care setting and/or could benefit from specialized care. To implement recommendations for pain education, primary care physicians need educational materials in a variety of formats and levels of detail that ideally could be processed by patients at home and then get addressed in practices using simple key questions. Non-drug measures should be an explicit part of the treatment plan. CONCLUSION: Many of the identified recommendations for the treatment of patients with chronic non-tumor pain can also be considered relevant for the primary care setting. Specific guidelines and concepts for primary care physicians that include setting-specific characteristics at the physician, patient, and system levels would be desirable for a successful implementation of these recommendations.