PloS one · 2023
Intolerance-of-uncertainty therapy versus metacognitive therapy for generalized anxiety disorder in primary health care: A randomized controlled pilot trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Af Winklerfelt Hammarberg Sandra, Toth-Pal Eva, Jansson-Fröjmark Markus, Lundgren Tobias, Westman Jeanette, Bohman Benjamin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled pilot study investigated the feasibility of a future full-scale RCT to compare the effects of intolerance-of-uncertainty therapy (IUT) and metacognitive therapy (MCT) in primary health care patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Preliminary treatment effects were also evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 64 patients with GAD at a large primary health care center in Stockholm, Sweden, were randomized to IUT or MCT. Feasibility outcomes included participant recruitment and retention, willingness to receive psychological treatment, and therapists' competence in and adherence to treatment protocols. Self-reported scales were used to assess treatment outcomes, including worry, depression, functional impairment, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Recruitment was satisfactory, and dropout was low. On a scale from 0 to 6, participants were satisfied with participating in the study (M = 5.17, SD = 1.09). Following brief training, therapists' competence was rated as moderate, and adherence was rated as weak to moderate. From pre- to post-treatment, reductions on the primary treatment outcome measure of worry were of a large effect size and statistically significant in both the IUT and MCT conditions (Cohen's d for IUT = -2.69, 95% confidence interval [-3.63, -1.76] and d for MCT = -3.78 [-4.68, -2.90]). The between-group effect size from pre- to post-treatment was large and statistically significant (d = -2.03 [-3.31, -0.75]), in favor of the MCT condition.
CONCLUSION: It is feasible to carry out a full-scale RCT to compare the effects of IUT to MCT for patients with GAD in primary health care. Both protocols seem effective, and MCT seems superior to IUT, but a full-scale RCT is needed to confirm these conclusions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT03621371).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 64 patients with GAD at a large primary health care center in Stockholm, Sweden, were randomized to IUT or MCT. Feasibility outcomes included participant recruitment and retention, willingness to receive psychological treatment, and therapists' competence in and adherence to treatment protocols. Self-reported scales were used to assess treatment outcomes, including worry, depression, functional impairment, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Recruitment was satisfactory, and dropout was low. On a scale from 0 to 6, participants were satisfied with participating in the study (M = 5.17, SD = 1.09). Following brief training, therapists' competence was rated as moderate, and adherence was rated as weak to moderate. From pre- to post-treatment, reductions on the primary treatment outcome measure of worry were of a large effect size and statistically significant in both the IUT and MCT conditions (Cohen's d for IUT = -2.69, 95% confidence interval [-3.63, -1.76] and d for MCT = -3.78 [-4.68, -2.90]). The between-group effect size from pre- to post-treatment was large and statistically significant (d = -2.03 [-3.31, -0.75]), in favor of the MCT condition.
CONCLUSION: It is feasible to carry out a full-scale RCT to compare the effects of IUT to MCT for patients with GAD in primary health care. Both protocols seem effective, and MCT seems superior to IUT, but a full-scale RCT is needed to confirm these conclusions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT03621371).