Cost-utility analysis of Social Stories™ for children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream primary schools: results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in 57 children are diagnosed with autism in the UK, and the estimated cost for supporting these children in education is substantial. Social Stories™ is a promising and widely used intervention for supporting children with autism in schools and families. It is believed that Social Stories™ can provide meaningful social information to children that can improve social understanding and may reduce anxiety. However, no economic evaluation of Social Stories has been conducted. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Social Stories through Autism Spectrum Social Stories in Schools Trial 2, a multi-site, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Children with autism who were aged 4-11 years were recruited and randomised (N = 249). Costs measured from the societal perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-Y-3L proxy were collected at baseline and at 6-month follow-up for primary analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, and the uncertainty around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was captured by non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: Social Stories is likely to result in a small cost savings (-£191 per child, 95% CI -767.7 to 337.7) and maintain similar QALY improvements compared with usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if society is willing to pay £20 000 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis results aligned with the main study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, Social Stories did not lead to an increase in costs and maintained similar QALY improvements for primary-aged children with autism.

Behavioural activation to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on older people in England and Wales (BASIL+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults were more likely to be socially isolated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased risk of depression and loneliness. We aimed to investigate whether a behavioural activation intervention delivered via telephone could mitigate depression and loneliness in at-risk older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: BASIL+ (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation) was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial conducted among patients recruited from general practices in England and Wales, and was designed to assess the effectiveness of behavioural activation in mitigating depression and loneliness among older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible participants were aged 65 years and older, socially isolated, with a score of 5 or higher on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and had multiple long-term conditions. Participants were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (behavioural activation) or control groups by use of simple randomisation without stratification. Behavioural activation was delivered by telephone; participants were offered up to eight weekly sessions with trained BASIL+ Support Workers. Behavioural activation was adapted to maintain social connections and encourage socially reinforcing activities. Participants in the control group received usual care with existing COVID-19 wellbeing resources. The primary clinical outcome was self-reported depression severity, assessed by the PHQ-9, at 3 months. Outcomes were assessed masked to allocation and analysis was by treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN63034289). FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 449 eligible participants were identified and 435 from 26 general practices were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the behavioural activation intervention (n=218) or to the control group (usual care with signposting; n=217). The mean age of participants was 75·7 years (SD 6·7); 270 (62·1%) of 435 participants were female, and 418 (96·1%) were White. Participants in the intervention group attended an average of 5·2 (SD 2·9) of eight remote behavioural activation sessions. The adjusted mean difference in PHQ-9 scores between the control and intervention groups at 3 months was -1·65 (95% CI -2·54 to -0·75, p=0·0003). No adverse events were reported that were attributable to the behavioural activation intervention. INTERPRETATION: Behavioural activation is an effective and potentially scalable intervention that can reduce symptoms of depression and emotional loneliness in at-risk groups in the short term. The findings of this trial add to the range of strategies to improve the mental health of older adults with multiple long-term conditions. These results can be helpful to policy makers beyond the pandemic in reducing the global burden of depression and addressing the health impacts of loneliness, particularly in at-risk groups. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Cognitive change before sudden gains in cognitive behavioural therapy for panic disorder.

BACKGROUND: Sudden gains occur in a range of disorders and treatments and are of clinical and theoretical significance if they can shed light on therapeutic change processes. This study investigated the relationship between sudden gains in panic symptoms and preceding cognitive change during cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for panic disorder. METHOD: Participants with panic disorder completed in session measures of panic symptoms and catastrophic cognitions. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the post-treatment score of those who met criteria for one or more sudden gain during treatment with those who did not, and to compare within-session cognitive change between pre-sudden gain sessions and the previous (control) session. RESULTS: Twenty-two (42%) of 53 participants experienced a sudden gain during treatment. Participants demonstrating a sudden gain showed more improvement in panic symptoms from pre- to post-treatment than those without a sudden gain. The within-session cognitive change score in the pre-gain session was significantly greater than in the control session. CONCLUSIONS: Sudden gains occurred in individual CBT for panic disorder and within-session cognitive change was associated with sudden gains. This is consistent with the cognitive model of panic disorder and highlights how sudden gains can help to identify key change processes.

Generating EQ-5D-3L health utility scores from the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: a perinatal mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal depression (PND) describes depression experienced by parents during pregnancy or in the first year after a baby is born. The EQ-5D instrument (a generic measure of health status) is not often collected in perinatal research, however disease-specific measures, such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) are widely used. Mapping can be used to estimate generic health utility index values from disease-specific measures like the EPDS. OBJECTIVE: To develop a mapping algorithm to estimate EQ-5D utility index values from the EPDS. METHODS: Patient-level data from the BaBY PaNDA study (English observational cohort study) provided 1068 observations with paired EPDS and EQ-5D (3-level version; EQ-5D-3L) responses. We compared the performance of six alternative regression model types, each with four specifications of covariates (EPDS score and age: base, squared, and cubed). Model performance (ability to predict utility values) was assessed by ranking mean error, mean absolute error, and root mean square error. Algorithm performance in 3 external datasets was also evaluated. RESULTS: There was moderate correlation between EPDS score and utility values (coefficient: - 0.42). The best performing model type was a two-part model, followed by ordinary least squared. Inclusion of squared and cubed covariates improved model performance. Based on graphs of observed and predicted utility values, the algorithm performed better when utility was above 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: This direct mapping algorithm allows the estimation of health utility values from EPDS scores. The algorithm has good external validity but is likely to perform better in samples with higher health status.

An economic evaluation of universal and targeted case-finding strategies for identifying antenatal depression: a model-based analysis comparing common case-finding instruments.

Half of women with depression in the perinatal period are not identified in routine care, and missed cases reflect inequalities in other areas of maternity care. Case finding (screening) for depression in pregnant women may be a cost-effective strategy to improve identification, and targeted case finding directs finite resources towards the greatest need. We compared the cost-effectiveness of three case-finding strategies: no case finding, universal (all pregnant women), and targeted (only pregnant women with risk factors for antenatal depression, i.e. history of anxiety/depression, age < 20 years, and adverse life events). A decision tree model was developed to represent case finding (at around 20 weeks gestation) and subsequent treatment for antenatal depression (up to 40 weeks gestation). Costs include case finding and treatment. Health benefits are measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The sensitivity and specificity of case-finding instruments and prevalence and severity of antenatal depression were estimated from a cohort study of pregnant women. Other model parameters were derived from published literature and expert consultation. The most cost-effective case-finding strategy was a two-stage strategy comprising the Whooley questions followed by the PHQ-9. The mean costs were £52 (universal), £61 (no case finding), and £62 (targeted case finding). Both case-finding strategies improve health compared with no case finding. Universal case finding is cost-saving. Costs associated with targeted case finding are similar to no case finding, with greater health gains, although targeted case finding is not cost-effective compared with universal case finding. Universal case finding for antenatal depression is cost-saving compared to no case finding and more cost-effective than targeted case finding.

Mental Health First Aid as a tool for improving mental health and well-being.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental health problems is high, and they have a wide-ranging and deleterious effect on many sectors in society. As well as the impact on individuals and families, mental health problems in the workplace negatively affect productivity. One of the factors that may exacerbate the impact of mental health problems is a lack of 'mental health literacy' in the general population. This has been defined as 'knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders, which aid their recognition, management, or prevention'. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme developed in Australia in 2000; its aim is to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The course has been adapted for various contexts, but essentially covers the symptoms of various mental health disorders, along with associated mental health crisis situations. The programmes also teach trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. It is theorised that improved knowledge will encourage the trainees to provide support, and encourage people to actively seek help, thereby leading to improvements in mental health. This review focuses on the effects of MHFA on the mental health and mental well-being of individuals and communities in which MHFA training has been provided. We also examine the impact on mental health literacy. This information is essential for decision-makers considering the role of MHFA training in their organisations. OBJECTIVES: To examine mental health and well-being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of MHFA training on individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered. SEARCH METHODS: We developed a sensitive search strategy to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MHFA training. This approach used bibliographic databases searching, using a search strategy developed for Ovid MEDLINE (1946 -), and translated across to Ovid Embase (1974 -), Ovid PsycINFO (1967 -), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched online clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), grey literature and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. Searches are current to 13th June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention, active or attention control (such as first aid courses), waiting list control, or alternative mental health literacy interventions. Participants were individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered and MHFA trainees. Primary outcomes included mental health and well-being of individuals, mental health service usage and adverse effects of MHFA training. Secondary outcomes related to individuals, MHFA trainees, and communities or organisations in which MHFA training has been delivered DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the key results using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving a total of 22,604 participants were included in the review. Fifteen studies compared MHFA training with no intervention/waiting list, two studies compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention, and four studies compared MHFA training with an active or an attention control intervention. Our primary time point was between six and 12 months. When MHFA training was compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.28; 3 studies; 3939 participants). We judged all the results that contributed to this outcome as being at high risk of bias. No study measured mental health service usage at six to 12 months. We did not find published data on adverse effects. Only one study with usable data compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention. The study did not measure outcomes in individuals in the community. It also did not measure outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. Four studies with usable data compared MHFA training to an active or attention control. None of the studies measured outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot draw conclusions about the effects of MHFA training on our primary outcomes due to the lack of good quality evidence. This is the case whether it is compared to no intervention, to an alternative mental health literacy intervention, or to an active control. Studies are at high risk of bias and often not sufficiently large to be able to detect differences.

Mental health trajectories in university students across the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the Student Wellbeing at Northern England Universities prospective cohort study.

Introduction: Psychological wellbeing in university students is receiving increased focus. However, to date, few longitudinal studies in this population have been conducted. As such, in 2019, we established the Student Wellbeing At Northern England Universities (SWANS) cohort at the University of York, United Kingdom aiming to measure student mental health and wellbeing every six months. Furthermore, the study period included the COVID-19 pandemic, giving an opportunity to track student wellbeing over time, including over the pandemic. Methods: Eligible participants were invited to participate via email. Data were collected, using Qualtrics, from September 2019 to April 2021, across five waves (W1 to W5). In total, n = 4,622 students participated in at least one wave of the survey. Data collection included sociodemographic, educational, personality measures, and mental health and wellbeing. Latent profile analyses were performed, exploring trajectories of student wellbeing over the study period for those who had completed at least three of the five waves of the survey (n = 765), as measured by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). Results: Five latent profile trajectories of student wellbeing were identified. Of these, the two latent classes with initially higher wellbeing scores had broadly stable wellbeing across time (total n = 505, 66%). Two classes had lower initial scores, which lowered further across time (total n = 227, 30%). Additionally, a fifth class of students was identified who improved substantially over the study period, from a mean WEMWBS of 30.4 at W1, to 49.4 at W5 (n = 33, 4%). Risk factors for having less favourable wellbeing trajectories generally included identifying as LGBT+, self-declaring a disability, or previously being diagnosed with a mental health condition. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a mixed picture of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on student wellbeing, with a majority showing broadly consistent levels of wellbeing across time, a smaller but still substantial group showing a worsening of wellbeing, and a small group that showed a very marked improvement in wellbeing. Those from groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education were most at risk of poorer wellbeing. This raises questions as to whether future support for wellbeing should target specific student subpopulations.

An economic evaluation of targeted case-finding strategies for identifying postnatal depression: A model-based analysis comparing common case-finding instruments.

BACKGROUND: Half of women with postnatal depression (PND) are not identified in routine care. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PND case-finding in women with risk factors for PND. METHODS: A decision tree was developed to represent the one-year costs and health outcomes associated with case-finding and treatment for PND. The sensitivity and specificity of case-finding instruments, and prevalence and severity of PND, for women with ≥1 PND risk factor were estimated from a cohort of postnatal women. Risk factors were history of anxiety/depression, age < 20 years, and adverse life events. Other model parameters were derived from published literature and expert consultation. Case-finding for high-risk women only was compared with no case-finding and universal case-finding. RESULTS: More than half of the cohort had one or more PND risk factor (57.8 %; 95 % CI 52.7 %-62.7 %). The most cost-effective case-finding strategy was the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale with a cut-off of ≥10 (EPDS-10). Among high-risk women, there is a high probability that EPDS-10 case-finding for PND is cost-effective compared to no case-finding (78.5 % at a threshold of £20,000/QALY), with an ICER of £8146/QALY gained. Universal case-finding is even more cost-effective at £2945/QALY gained (versus no case-finding). There is a greater health improvement with universal rather than targeted case-finding. LIMITATIONS: The model includes costs and health benefits for mothers in the first year postpartum, the broader (e.g. families, societal) and long-term impacts are also important. CONCLUSIONS: Universal PND case-finding is more cost-effective than targeted case-finding which itself is more cost-effective than not case-finding.

Acceptability of a behavioural intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions in older people with long-term conditions: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic heightened the need to address loneliness, social isolation and associated incidence of depression among older adults. Between June and October 2020, the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL) pilot study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of a remotely delivered brief psychological intervention (behavioural cctivation) to prevent and reduce loneliness and depression in older people with long-term conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: An embedded qualitative study was conducted. Semi-structured interviews generated data that was analysed inductively using thematic analysis and then deductively using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). SETTING: NHS and third sector organisations in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen older adults and nine support workers participating in the BASIL pilot study. RESULTS: Acceptability of the intervention was high across all constructs of the TFA: Older adults and BASIL Support Workers described a positive Affective Attitude towards the intervention linked to altruism, however the activity planning aspect of the intervention was limited due to COVID-19 restrictions. A manageable Burden was involved with delivering and participating in the intervention. For Ethicality, older adults valued social contact and making changes, support workers valued being able to observe those changes. The intervention was understood by older adults and support workers, although less understanding in older adults without low mood (Intervention Coherence). Opportunity Cost was low for support workers and older adults. Behavioural Activation was perceived to be useful in the pandemic and likely to achieve its aims (Perceived Effectiveness), especially if tailored to people with both low mood and long-term conditions. Self-efficacy developed over time and with experience for both support workers and older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, BASIL pilot study processes and the intervention were acceptable. Use of the TFA provided valuable insights into how the intervention was experienced and how the acceptability of study processes and the intervention could be enhanced ahead of the larger definitive trial (BASIL+).

Routinely used interventions to improve attachment in infants and young children: a national survey and two systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Attachment refers to an infant's innate tendency to seek comfort from their caregiver. Research shows that attachment is important in promoting healthy social and emotional development. Many parenting interventions have been developed to improve attachment outcomes for children. However, numerous interventions used in routine practice have a limited evidence base, meaning that we cannot be sure if they are helpful or harmful. OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to conduct a large-scale survey to identify what interventions are being used in UK services to improve child attachment; conduct a systematic review to evaluate the evidence for parenting attachment interventions; and develop recommendations for future research and practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: We worked closely with our Expert Reference Group to plan a large-scale survey focused on relevant UK services. We then conducted two systematic reviews. One searched for all randomised controlled trial evidence for any attachment parenting intervention. The second searched for all research for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified from the survey. RESULTS: The survey collected 625 responses covering 734 UK services. The results identified the 10 most commonly used interventions. The responses showed a limited use of validated measures and a wide variety of definitions of attachment. For the first review, seven studies were included from 2516 identified records. These were combined with results from previous reviews conducted by the team. Meta-analyses showed that, overall, parenting interventions are effective in reducing disorganised attachment (pooled odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.77) and increasing secure attachment (pooled odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.52). The second review searched the literature for the top 10 routinely used interventions identified by the survey; 61 studies were included from 1198 identified records. The results showed that many of the most commonly used interventions in UK services have a weak evidence base and those with the strongest evidence base are not as widely used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for better links between research and practice to ensure that interventions offered to families are safe and effective. Possible reasons for the disparity include the cost and accessibility of training. There is also a need for improved understanding by professionals regarding the meaning of attachment. LIMITATIONS: Although the survey had good geographical spread, most respondents were based in England. For review 2 we were unable to access a large number of papers; however, we conducted extensive reference checking to account for this. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for robust research to test the efficacy of routinely used attachment interventions. Research could also explore why routinely used interventions are not consistently subject to thorough evaluation; how to embed dissemination, cost-effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability into research; and how to keep clinical practice up to date with research developments. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137362. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Attachment refers to an infant's natural instinct to seek comfort from their main carers. There are four ways in which infants show attachment ('attachment patterns'). These are known as secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant and disorganised. Secure attachment usually occurs with consistent and responsive parenting/caregiving and is linked with positive social and emotional child development. Inconsistent, neglectful or abusive parenting/caregiving can lead to problems with attachment, including disorganised attachment, and is linked to poorer outcomes. Parenting support, education and therapies help parents improve infant attachment and their child's outcomes. We surveyed UK services to see what they offered families with attachment problems. A total of 734 UK services responded. This identified 10 therapies or support packages most commonly offered to parents. We checked what research had been done on these. We found very little. We found 61 studies of support packages with quite good evidence, but these were generally not ones offered by UK services. We also looked in detail at research for all types of support/therapies to improve attachment. We looked for the best research (called 'randomised controlled trials'); 26 studies had tested therapies to see if they improved secure attachment and 20 had tested whether or not they improved (i.e. reduced) disorganised attachment. We found that these therapies or support packages are good at increasing secure attachment and improving disorganised attachment. Mostly they did this by helping parents/caregivers improve caregiving and particularly how sensitive and responsive they are to their child and their needs. Currently, practice is not following research, and research is not being done to properly evaluate current practice. We need to improve the evidence and the way it links to practice, including how those organising and paying for services are made aware of up-to-date research to make sure that the best treatments are available. High-quality training for staff is also important.

Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

One session treatment (OST) is equivalent to multi-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with specific phobias (ASPECT): results from a national non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. METHODS: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months. RESULTS: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. CONCLUSIONS: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

Risk factors for initial appointment non-attendance at Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) services: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.5 million referrals are made to Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) services annually. However, treatment is received in less than half of cases due to ineligibility or non-attendance. The aim was to explore risk factors for non-attendance at the initial two IAPT appointments following referral. METHODS: An exploratory, retrospective analysis of referral and attendance data from five IAPT services in the North of England. Participants were 97,020 referrals received 2010-2014. Main outcome was attendance at the first two offered appointments (assessment and initial treatment). RESULTS: Based on data from two services, 66% of referrals resulted in assessment attendance. Across all five services 57% of patients who attended for assessment subsequently attended the first treatment appointment. The odds of attending an assessment appointment were more than 3 times higher for self-referrals than for GP referrals (OR 3.46, 95% CI 3.27-3.66, p < 0.001). Factors important to treatment appointment attendance following assessment were the service, referral source, presenting problem, and anxiety severity. CONCLUSION: Initial appointment non-attendance is a consistent problem for IAPT services. Specific factors that may support IAPT services to improve non-attendance rates are identified. IAPT indicators of success should take account of non-attendance at initial appointments.

How well do Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Behavioural Activation for depression repair anhedonia? A secondary analysis of the COBRA randomized controlled trial.

A secondary analysis of the COBRA randomized controlled trial was conducted to examine how well Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Behavioural Activation (BA) repair anhedonia. Patients with current major depressive disorder (N = 440) were randomized to receive BA or CBT, and anhedonia and depression outcomes were measured after acute treatment (six months) and at two further follow up intervals (12 and 18 months). Anhedonia was assessed using the Snaith Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS; a measure of consummatory pleasure). Both CBT and BA led to significant improvements in anhedonia during acute treatment, with no significant difference between treatments. Participants remained above healthy population averages of anhedonia at six months, and there was no further significant improvement in anhedonia at 12-month or 18-month follow up. Greater baseline anhedonia severity predicted reduced repair of depression symptoms and fewer depression-free days across the follow-up period in both the BA and CBT arms. The extent of anhedonia repair was less marked than the extent of depression repair across both treatment arms. These findings demonstrate that CBT and BA are similarly and only partially effective in treating anhedonia. Therefore, both therapies should be further refined or novel treatments should be developed in order better to treat anhedonia.

One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive-behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period. OBJECTIVE: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive-behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations. SETTINGS: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 7-16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive-behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive-behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive-behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment -0.123, 95% confidence interval -0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference -0.204, 95% confidence interval -0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive-behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A phobia is an intense, ongoing fear of an everyday object or situation. The phobia causes distress and the person with the phobia avoids that object or situation. Many children and young people have phobias that affect their daily lives. Cognitive­behavioural therapy helps by changing what people do or think when they have a phobia and is the most common treatment approach. However, cognitive­behavioural therapy is expensive, takes time and is not always easy to get. Different treatments are needed to help children and young people with specific phobias. One such therapy is one-session treatment, which works in similar ways to cognitive­behavioural therapy but takes place over one main 3-hour session. Our study, called ASPECT (Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial), compared these two treatments to examine whether or not one-session treatment is as effective as cognitive­behavioural therapy. Overall, 274 children and young people aged 7­16 years from 26 sites nationally helped with our research, of whom 268 received either cognitive­behavioural therapy or one-session treatment. The results at 6 months found that one-session treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy worked as well as each other for treating phobias in children and young people. We also found evidence that one-session treatment is cheaper than cognitive­behavioural therapy. We spoke with children and young people, their parents/guardians and the therapists of the single-session treatment, and we found one-session treatment to be acceptable for their needs. Future research could explore how to make one-session treatment more easily available for children and young people with specific phobias because it can save time and money, and works just as well as cognitive­behavioural therapy.

Can we mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation using behavioural activation? Long-term results of the UK BASIL urgent public health COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial and living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural and cognitive interventions remain credible approaches in addressing loneliness and depression. There was a need to rapidly generate and assimilate trial-based data during COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a parallel pilot RCT of behavioural activation (a brief behavioural intervention) for depression and loneliness (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation, the BASIL-C19 trial ISRCTN94091479). We also assimilate these data in a living systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021298788) of cognitive and/or behavioural interventions. METHODS: Participants (≥65 years) with long-term conditions were computer randomised to behavioural activation (n=47) versus care as usual (n=49). Primary outcome was PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes included loneliness (De Jong Scale). Data from the BASIL-C19 trial were included in a metanalysis of depression and loneliness. FINDINGS: The 12 months adjusted mean difference for PHQ-9 was -0.70 (95% CI -2.61 to 1.20) and for loneliness was -0.39 (95% CI -1.43 to 0.65).The BASIL-C19 living systematic review (12 trials) found short-term reductions in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.31, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.11) and loneliness (SMD=-0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27). There were few long-term trials, but there was evidence of some benefit (loneliness SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; depression SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.07). DISCUSSION: We delivered a pilot trial of a behavioural intervention targeting loneliness and depression; achieving long-term follow-up. Living meta-analysis provides strong evidence of short-term benefit for loneliness and depression for cognitive and/or behavioural approaches. A fully powered BASIL trial is underway. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Scalable behavioural and cognitive approaches should be considered as population-level strategies for depression and loneliness on the basis of a living systematic review.

Support and services for perinatal low mood and depression: A qualitative study exploring women's and healthcare professionals' experiences.

This study aimed to explore women's experiences of support and care received from maternity healthcare professionals for perinatal low mood or depression, and healthcare professionals' experiences of providing support and care for women experiencing perinatal low mood or depression. In this qualitative study, face-to-face individual semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 15 women and 19 healthcare professionals living or working in Yorkshire and the Humber, England in 2019. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. The following themes were identified: (1) lack of standardization in identification and support for perinatal low mood and depression; (2) unclear and nonstandardized pathways for perinatal low mood and depression; and (3) enablers and barriers of receiving support and care for perinatal low mood and depression. Providing training opportunities for healthcare professionals, especially midwives, may be helpful for filling the gray area for women who do not need a referral to mental health services but require support from healthcare professionals. Improving the variety of psychological therapies for the treatment of perinatal depression may also be helpful to meet women's expectations of treatments.

Cost and effectiveness of one session treatment (OST) for children and young people with specific phobias compared to multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT): results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, around 93,000 (0.8%) children and young people (CYP) are experiencing specific phobias that have a substantial impact on daily life. The current gold-standard treatment-multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) - is effective at reducing specific phobia severity; however, CBT is time consuming, requires specialist CBT therapists, and is often at great cost and limited availability. A briefer variant of CBT called one session treatment (OST) has been found to offer similar clinical effectiveness for specific phobia as multi-session CBT. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of OST compared to multi-session CBT for CYP with specific phobias through the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT), a two-arm, pragmatic, multi-centre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. METHODS: CYP aged seven to 16 years with specific phobias were recruited nationally via Health and Social Care pathways, remotely randomised to the intervention group (OST) or the control group (CBT-based therapies) and analysed (n = 267). Resource use based on NHS and personal social services perspective and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y were collected at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to capture the uncertainty around the ICER estimates. The results were presented on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses (including taking a societal perspective) were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: After adjustment and bootstrapping, on average CYP in the OST group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£302.96 (95% CI -£598.86 to -£28.61)) and maintained similar improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.002 (95% CI - 0.004 to 0.008)). The CEAC shows that the probability of OST being cost-effective was over 95% across all the WTP thresholds. Results of a set of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to CBT, OST produced a reduction in costs and maintained similar improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that OST was highly likely to be cost saving. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19883421 (30/11/2016).

A brief report informing the adaptation of a behavioural activation intervention for delivery by non-mental health specialists for the treatment of perinatal depression.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural activation (BA) is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the treatment of perinatal depression; however, there is limited evidence about whether it is effective when delivered by non-mental health specialists (NMHS) in a perinatal setting in the UK. AIMS: This study aimed to adapt a BA intervention manual and guided self-help booklet intended for delivery by NMHSs for the treatment of perinatal depression. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with 15 women and 19 healthcare professionals (HCP) within the first study element. Four experience-based co-design (EBCD) workshops were held, with the involvement of 14 women and three HCPs, to modify the BA documents for the specific needs of perinatal women. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. FINDINGS: The findings from the study elements were presented with themes. The co-designers (women and HCPs) pointed out that having sleeping problems, changes in appetite, feeling exhausted and feeling emotional, may be experienced by non-depressed mothers as well during pregnancy or in the postpartum period, especially around the fourth day after giving birth. Therefore, it was important to differentiate these feelings from depression. The women also wanted to see an example for each activity before being asked to do it. Having examples would help them to see the possibilities before creating their own diary sheets or tables of activities. CONCLUSIONS: Aside of the tool adaptation, the findings of this study provide a foundation to assess the effectiveness of the adapted intervention in a subsequent feasibility trial.

Women's experiences of perinatal depression: Symptoms, barriers and enablers to disclosure, and effects on daily life and interaction within the family.

OBJECTIVE: Nearly half of all cases of perinatal depression are not detected, despite routine appointments with healthcare professionals (HCP) during pregnancy and after childbirth. Early identification of perinatal depression is crucial to provide the required support and offer timely treatment. This study aimed to explore women's experiences of perinatal depression to help identification and management of perinatal depression by HCPs. DESIGN: Theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism and methodological design of ethnography was adopted. Face-to-face individual interviews were used. Thematic analysis was conducted to analyse interview data. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen women who had experienced perinatal depression in the last five years were interviewed. FINDINGS: Three themes were identified: 1) Getting closer to the perinatal depression; 2) Decision to disclose or hide real feelings; 3) Hidden face of perinatal depression. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings demonstrate the importance of HCPs' attitudes towards women, as if women perceive they being dismissed or neglected by HCPs, may have an impact on women refraining from disclosing their feelings.