OBJECTIVES: To investigate if early symptom changes in brief low intensity psychological interventions (guided self-help and psycho-education using cognitive behavioural therapy principles) are predictive of final treatment outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort data analysis. METHOD: Clinical records for 1,850 patients who screened positive for depression and/or an anxiety disorder were analysed. Reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI) on depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9: PHQ-9) or anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder-7: GAD-7) outcome measures after treatment was the primary outcome. Change scores ≥6 on PHQ-9 and ≥5 on GAD-7 were taken as indicative of reliable improvement (RI). The model assumed that RI in the earliest treatment sessions would be predictive of RCSI post-treatment. Predictive accuracy was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC), as well as positive and negative predictive values. Diagnostic odds ratios were also estimated, adjusting for confounders such as baseline severity, use of medication, and pre-treatment symptom change. RESULTS: The AUC estimates for session-to-session change scores ranged between .62 and .88, indicative of modest to high predictive reliability. Predictive accuracy was higher for patients who had four or more treatment sessions, with more than 70% of patients with RCSI being accurately identified as early as sessions 1-3. Attrition rates were significantly associated with poor outcomes. Results suggest that at least four therapy sessions are necessary to achieve more than 50% RCSI rates, and the dose-response effect appears to decline in treatments longer than six sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients showing RI early in treatment were at least twice as likely to fully recover compared to those without early RI.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate if early symptom changes in brief low intensity psychological interventions (guided self-help and psycho-education using cognitive behavioural therapy principles) are predictive of final treatment outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort data analysis. METHOD: Clinical records for 1,850 patients who screened positive for depression and/or an anxiety disorder were analysed. Reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI) on depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9: PHQ-9) or anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder-7: GAD-7) outcome measures after treatment was the primary outcome. Change scores ≥6 on PHQ-9 and ≥5 on GAD-7 were taken as indicative of reliable improvement (RI). The model assumed that RI in the earliest treatment sessions would be predictive of RCSI post-treatment. Predictive accuracy was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC), as well as positive and negative predictive values. Diagnostic odds ratios were also estimated, adjusting for confounders such as baseline severity, use of medication, and pre-treatment symptom change. RESULTS: The AUC estimates for session-to-session change scores ranged between .62 and .88, indicative of modest to high predictive reliability. Predictive accuracy was higher for patients who had four or more treatment sessions, with more than 70% of patients with RCSI being accurately identified as early as sessions 1-3. Attrition rates were significantly associated with poor outcomes. Results suggest that at least four therapy sessions are necessary to achieve more than 50% RCSI rates, and the dose-response effect appears to decline in treatments longer than six sessions. CONCLUSIONS:Patients showing RI early in treatment were at least twice as likely to fully recover compared to those without early RI.
Authors: D A van Dijk; M L Deen; Th M van den Boogaard; H G Ruhé; J Spijker; F P M L Peeters Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 5.760
Authors: Kimberley A Goldsmith; David P MacKinnon; Trudie Chalder; Peter D White; Michael Sharpe; Andrew Pickles Journal: Psychol Methods Date: 2017-12-28
Authors: Wolfgang Lutz; Dirk Zimmermann; Viola N L S Müller; Anne-Katharina Deisenhofer; Julian A Rubel Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Mike Lucock; Michael Barkham; Gillian Donohoe; Stephen Kellett; Dean McMillan; Sarah Mullaney; Andrew Sainty; David Saxon; Richard Thwaites; Jaime Delgadillo Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2017-11
Authors: Wolfgang Lutz; Alice Arndt; Julian Rubel; Thomas Berger; Johanna Schröder; Christina Späth; Björn Meyer; Wolfgang Greiner; Viola Gräfe; Martin Hautzinger; Kristina Fuhr; Matthias Rose; Sandra Nolte; Bernd Löwe; Fritz Hohagen; Jan Philipp Klein; Steffen Moritz Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sarah Elison; Jonathan Ward; Chris Williams; Colin Espie; Glyn Davies; Stephanie Dugdale; Kathryn Ragan; Leanne Chisnall; Nicky Lidbetter; Keith Smith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Wolfgang Lutz; Brian Schwartz; Stefan G Hofmann; Aaron J Fisher; Kristin Husen; Julian A Rubel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.379