Clinical effectiveness of the psychological therapy Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy in addition to usual care compared with assessment-enhanced usual care alone: a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are common in children and young people with chronic health conditions, but many of those in need do not access evidence-based psychological treatments. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of integrated mental health treatment for children and young people with epilepsy, a common chronic health condition known to be associated with a particularly high rate of co-occurring mental health difficulties. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of participants aged 3-18 years, attending epilepsy clinics across England and Northern Ireland who met diagnostic criteria for a common mental health disorder. Participants were randomised (1:1; using an independent web-based system) to receive the Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy (MICE) in addition to usual care, or assessment-enhanced usual care alone (control). Children and young people in both groups received a full diagnostic mental health assessment. MICE was a modular psychological intervention designed to treat common mental health conditions in children and young people using evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behaviour therapy and behavioural parenting strategies. Usual care for mental health disorders varied by site but typically included referral to appropriate services. Participants, along with their caregivers, and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation but statisticians were masked until the point of analysis. The primary outcome, analysed by modified intention-to-treat, was the parent-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 6 months post-randomisation. The study is complete and registered with ISRCTN (57823197). FINDINGS: 1401 young people were potentially deemed eligible for study inclusion. Following the exclusion of 531 young people, 870 participants were assessed for eligibility and completed the SDQ, and 480 caregivers provided consent for study inclusion between May 20, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022. Between Aug 28, 2019, and Feb 21, 2022, 334 participants (mean ages 10·5 years [SD 3·6] in the MICE group vs 10·3 [4·0] in control group at baseline) were randomly assigned to an intervention using minimisation balanced by age, primary mental health disorder, diagnosis of intellectual disability, and autistic spectrum disorder at baseline. 168 (50%) of the participants were female and 166 (50%) were male. 166 participants were randomly assigned to the MICE group and 168 were randomly assigned to the control group. At 6 months, the mean SDQ difficulties for the 148 participants in the MICE group was 17·6 (SD 6·3) and 19·6 (6·1) for the 148 participants in the control group. The adjusted effect of MICE was -1·7 (95% CI -2·8 to -0·5; p=0·0040; Cohen's d, 0·3). 14 (8%) patients in the MICE group experienced at least one serious adverse event compared with 24 (14%) in the control group. 68% percent of serious adverse events (50 events) were admission due to seizures. INTERPRETATION: MICE was superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving symptoms of emotional and behavioural difficulties in young people with epilepsy and common mental health disorders. The trial therefore shows that mental health comorbidities can be effectively and safely treated by a variety of clinicians, utilising an integrated intervention across ages and in the context of intellectual disability and autism. The evidence from this trial suggests that such a model should be fully embedded in epilepsy services and serves as a model for other chronic health conditions in young people. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and Epilepsy Research UK Endeavour Project Grant.

Brief group cognitive-behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder: A pilot study of feasibility and acceptability.

OBJECTIVE: Brief cognitive-behavioral therapy for non-underweight eating disorders (CBT-T) has been shown to be clinically useful in non-underweight samples, when delivered one-to-one. This pilot study assessed the acceptance, compliance and feasibility levels of a group version of CBT-T, which has the potential to enhance patient access. METHOD: A group CBT-T protocol was developed and piloted in two therapy groups (N = 8). Eating disorder attitudes and behaviors, depression and anxiety were assessed at the beginning and end of treatment. RESULTS: A third of all patients approached accepted the offer of group CBT-T, and entered treatment. Among that group of treatment starters, none were lost to treatment. The therapy was feasible in practical terms, including online delivery. Finally, mean scores on measures suggested improvement in clinical profiles. DISCUSSION: This pilot study demonstrated that a group CBT-T is a feasible intervention for non-underweight eating disorders in adults, with low acceptance but high compliance. Group CBT-T has the potential to reduce demand on services and in turn increase availability of treatment to those with eating disorders. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: The present research contributes to the treatment of non-underweight adults with eating disorders. Group CBT-T was shown to be feasible in this pilot study. It was associated with low acceptance but strong compliance. If supported by further research, group CBT-T has the potential to reduce waitlists, ensure throughput in services, and ultimately improve the lives of many who are affected by eating disorders.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the time of coronavirus: Clinician tips for working with eating disorders via telehealth when face-to-face meetings are not possible.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus pandemic has led to a dramatically different way of working for many therapists working with eating disorders, where telehealth has suddenly become the norm. However, many clinicians feel ill equipped to deliver therapy via telehealth, while adhering to evidence-based interventions. This article draws together clinician experiences of the issues that should be attended to, and how to address them within a telehealth framework. METHOD: Seventy clinical colleagues of the authors were emailed and invited to share their concerns online about how to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy for eating disorders (CBT-ED) via telehealth, and how to adapt clinical practice to deal with the problems that they and others had encountered. After 96 hr, all the suggestions that had been shared by 22 clinicians were collated to provide timely advice for other clinicians. RESULTS: A range of themes emerged from the online discussion. A large proportion were general clinical and practical domains (patient and therapist concerns about telehealth; technical issues in implementing telehealth; changes in the environment), but there were also specific considerations and clinical recommendations about the delivery of CBT-ED methods. DISCUSSION: Through interaction and sharing of ideas, clinicians across the world produced a substantial number of recommendations about how to use telehealth to work with people with eating disorders while remaining on track with evidence-based practice. These are shared to assist clinicians over the period of changed practice.