ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We explore adolescents' and their parents' experiences of internet-based emotion regulation therapy for non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). DESIGN: A qualitative study nested within a controlled feasibility trial. METHODS: Online, semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with outpatient adolescents with NSSI aged 13-17 years (n = 9) and their parents (n = 8) who had received therapist-guided Internet-delivered Emotion Regulation Individual Therapy for Adolescents (IERITA). Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were generated: (1) Fatigue - barriers to and during treatment, comprised of two sub-themes 'Arriving to services exhausted, needing motivation, and leaving feeling abandoned' and 'the burden of IERITA and the consequences of fatigue', (2) inter- and intrapersonal insights as facilitators of change and (3) Online, written contact with the therapist is beneficial and contributes with less pressure, comprised of three sub-themes 'the therapist behind the screen is essential', 'less pressure sitting alone: the physical absence of a therapist' and 'engaging on your own terms, in your own tempo'. Themes were consistent among adolescents and parents. CONCLUSION: Fatigue due to therapeutic engagement and previous help-seeking processes created barriers for engagement. Emotion regulation therapy was experienced as beneficial leading to inter- and intra-personal insights, facilitating change of maladaptive patterns. Therapists were regarded as indispensable, and the internet-based format did not hinder therapeutic alliance. The written format allowed for reflection and alleviated the pressure of relating to the therapist. Further research should explore experiences of other online treatment formats (e.g. synchronous or video-based) with regard to benefits, fatigue and therapist interaction.
ABSTRACT
The impact of stigmatisation on adults with mental illnesses has been thoroughly demonstrated. However, little is known about experiences of stigmatisation among adolescents with mental illness. Through semi-structured interviews with 34 Danish adolescents (14-19 years) diagnosed with psychosis, this study explores adolescents' experiences of psychosis stigma. On the basis of phenomenological analysis, we find that stigmatisation is widely experienced, and psychosis is generally regarded as more stigmatising than co-morbid mental illnesses. The participants engage in different strategies to manage possible stigma, especially strategies of (non-)disclosure. Disclosure is experienced as both therapeutic and normative, but also bears the risk of stigmatisation, and is therefore associated with numerous considerations. Being understood when disclosing is central to the participants, and lack of understanding from others is a continuous challenge. Nevertheless, participants experience benefits when feeling understood by people they confide in and can to a degree create the grounds for this through centralising aspects of their experiences of psychosis and mental illness. We argue that disclosure is both a stigma management strategy and a normative imperative, and that being understood or not is a challenge transcending stigma definitions.Clinical trial registration: Danish Health and Medicines Authority: 2612-4168. The Ethics Committee of Capital Region: H-3-2009-123. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01119014. Danish Data Protection Agency: 2009-41-3991.
Subject(s)
Psychotic Disorders , Social Stigma , Humans , Adolescent , Psychotic Disorders/psychology , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Male , Female , Denmark , Young Adult , Qualitative Research , AdultABSTRACT
Background: Knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD is sparse. No official guidelines exist for defining or monitoring adverse events in psychotherapy. Recent recommendations call for more qualitative and quantitative assessment of adverse events in psychotherapy trials. This mixed methods study aims to expand knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD. Methods: This is an analysis plan for a convergent mixed methods study within a randomized clinical trial (the TECTO trial). We include at least 128 youth aged 8-17 years with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Participants are randomized to either family-based cognitive behavioral therapy (FCBT) or family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT). Adverse events are monitored quantitatively with the Negative Effects Questionnaire. Furthermore, we assess psychiatric symptoms, global functioning, quality of life, and family factors to investigate predictors for adverse events. We conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with all youths and their parents on their experience of adverse events in FCBT or FPRT. For the mixed methods analysis, we will merge 1) a qualitative content analysis with descriptive statistics comparing the types, frequencies, and severity of adverse events; 2) a qualitative content analysis of the perceived causes for adverse events with prediction models for adverse events; and 3) a thematic analysis of the participants' treatment evaluation with a correlational analysis of adverse events and OCD severity. Discussion: The in-depth mixed methods analysis can inform 1) safer and more effective psychotherapy for OCD; 2) instruments and guidelines for monitoring adverse events; and 3) patient information on potential adverse events. The main limitation is risk of missing data. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03595098. Registered on July 23, 2018.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial. METHODS: The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018.
Subject(s)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy , Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder , Adolescent , Child , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/methods , Family Therapy , Humans , Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder/diagnosis , Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder/psychology , Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder/therapy , Quality of Life , Relaxation Therapy , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. DISCUSSION: In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018.