Giovanni A Salum1, Circe S Petersen2, Rafaela B Jarros1, Rudineia Toazza1, Diogo DeSousa1,2, Lidiane Nunes Borba1, Stela Castro3, Julia Gallegos4, Paula Barrett5, Rany Abend6, Yair Bar-Haim6, Daniel S Pine7, Silvia H Koller2, Gisele G Manfro1. 1. 1 Child and Adolescent Anxiety Program, Department of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul , Porto Alegre, Brazil . 2. 2 Center of Psychological Studies on at Risk Populations, Institute of Psychology , Porto Alegre, Brazil . 3. 3 Institute of Mathematics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul , Porto Alegre, Brazil . 4. 4 Department of Psychology, University of Monterrey , Monterrey, Mexico . 5. 5 Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Education, The University of Queensland , Brisbane, Australia . 6. 6 School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University , Tel Aviv, Israel . 7. 7 Emotion and Development Branch, Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Mental Health , Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to assess group differences in symptom reduction between individuals receiving group cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) and attention bias modification (ABM) compared to their respective control interventions, control therapy (CT), and attention control training (ACT), in a 2 × 2 factorial design. METHODS: A total of 310 treatment-naive children (7-11 years of age) were assessed for eligibility and 79 children with generalized, separation or social anxiety disorder were randomized and received G-CBT (n = 42) or CT (n = 37). Within each psychotherapy group, participants were again randomized to ABM (n = 38) or ACT (n = 41) in a 2 × 2 factorial design resulting in four groups: G-CBT + ABM (n = 21), G-CBT + ACT (n = 21), CT + ABM (n = 17), and CT + ACT (n = 20). Primary outcomes were responder designation as defined by Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale (≤2) and change on the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). RESULTS: There were significant improvements of symptoms in all groups. No differences in response rates or mean differences in PARS scores were found among groups: G-CBT + ABM group (23.8% response; 3.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.3 to 8.1), G-CBT + ACT (42.9% response; 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2-9.0), CT + ABM (47.1% response; 4.8 points 95% CI 1.08-8.57), and CT + ACT (30% response; 0.8 points, 95% CI -3.0 to 4.7). No evidence or synergic or antagonistic effects were found, but the combination of G-CBT and ABM was found to increase dropout rate. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of G-CBT or ABM beyond the effects of comparison groups. Results reveal no benefit from combining G-CBT and ABM for anxiety disorders in children and suggest potential deleterious effects of the combination on treatment acceptability.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to assess group differences in symptom reduction between individuals receiving group cognitive behavioral therapy (G-CBT) and attention bias modification (ABM) compared to their respective control interventions, control therapy (CT), and attention control training (ACT), in a 2 × 2 factorial design. METHODS: A total of 310 treatment-naive children (7-11 years of age) were assessed for eligibility and 79 children with generalized, separation or social anxiety disorder were randomized and received G-CBT (n = 42) or CT (n = 37). Within each psychotherapy group, participants were again randomized to ABM (n = 38) or ACT (n = 41) in a 2 × 2 factorial design resulting in four groups: G-CBT + ABM (n = 21), G-CBT + ACT (n = 21), CT + ABM (n = 17), and CT + ACT (n = 20). Primary outcomes were responder designation as defined by Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale (≤2) and change on the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). RESULTS: There were significant improvements of symptoms in all groups. No differences in response rates or mean differences in PARS scores were found among groups: G-CBT + ABM group (23.8% response; 3.9 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.3 to 8.1), G-CBT + ACT (42.9% response; 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2-9.0), CT + ABM (47.1% response; 4.8 points 95% CI 1.08-8.57), and CT + ACT (30% response; 0.8 points, 95% CI -3.0 to 4.7). No evidence or synergic or antagonistic effects were found, but the combination of G-CBT and ABM was found to increase dropout rate. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of G-CBT or ABM beyond the effects of comparison groups. Results reveal no benefit from combining G-CBT and ABM for anxiety disorders in children and suggest potential deleterious effects of the combination on treatment acceptability.
Authors: Mia P Kösters; Mai J M Chinapaw; Marieke Zwaanswijk; Marcel F van der Wal; Hans M Koot Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ronald M Rapee; Colin MacLeod; Leigh Carpenter; Jonathan E Gaston; Jacqueline Frei; Lorna Peters; Andrew J Baillie Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2013-01-30
Authors: Jennifer C Britton; Yair Bar-Haim; Michelle A Clementi; Lindsey S Sankin; Gang Chen; Tomer Shechner; Maxine A Norcross; Carolyn N Spiro; Kara M Lindstrom; Daniel S Pine Journal: Dev Cogn Neurosci Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 6.464
Authors: Tomer Shechner; Adi Rimon-Chakir; Jennifer C Britton; Danny Lotan; Alan Apter; Paul D Bliese; Daniel S Pine; Yair Bar-Haim Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 8.829