Increasing Acceptability and Outcome Expectancy for Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background:e-Health interventions for mental health have the potential to reduce burdens on health care systems, but large survey studies find low acceptability for these interventions. The COVID-19 pandemic may make attitudes toward e-health more malleable. The current study examined whether an intervention to improve attitudes toward Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) has a greater impact during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic.Materials and Methods:Individuals (N = 662) recruited from a large university and surrounding community who participated in a study about the acceptability of iCBT in 2018 and 2019 were asked to participate in a follow-up survey. In the original study, participants were randomized to receive or not receive a rationale designed to increase acceptability of iCBT, and then they completed measures of acceptability and outcome expectancy for iCBT. Fifty-one participants enrolled in the follow-up study from May to July 2020. They received a treatment rationale for iCBT (or not) in keeping with randomization from the parent study and re-completed measures assessing the acceptability and outcome expectancy for iCBT.Results:Contrary to hypotheses, two-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA's) demonstrated that there was no significant interaction between time point and rationale condition on acceptability or outcome expectancy for iCBT. There was a significant main effect of rationale condition on acceptability, such that participants who received a treatment rationale reported greater acceptability for iCBT. There were no significant main effects of time.Conclusions:A treatment rationale was effective in improving acceptability for iCBT in a general population sample, but not more so during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The use of trial-level bias scores to examine attention bias and attention bias variability among people with and without social anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive models of anxiety propose that people with anxiety disorders show elevated levels of attention bias toward threat, but the most commonly used index of attention bias, which measures the construct with an aggregate score of multiple trials across an experimental session, shows poor test-retest reliability. Newer indices that measure attention bias dynamically on a trial-to-trial basis show good reliability and enable researchers to measure not only overall attention bias toward threat, but also attention bias variability. METHODS: The current study tested the hypothesis that people diagnosed with social anxiety disorder would show higher attention bias variability and higher attention bias toward threat when calculated dynamically and when calculated using the traditional aggregate index. Participants diagnosed with social anxiety disorder (n = 47) and controls (n = 57) completed a 160-trial version of the dot-probe task using emotional and neutral images of faces as stimuli. RESULTS: Relative to controls, participants diagnosed with social anxiety disorder showed higher mean bias toward threat, but only when calculated using trial-level bias scores. There were no differences between groups on attention bias variability. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to examine differences in attention bias and attention bias variability between people with and without social anxiety disorder using trial-level bias scores. Results suggest that attention bias, but not attention bias variability, is a feature of social anxiety psychopathology and that trial-level bias scores may be more sensitive than aggregated mean scores to detect it. These findings have implications for clinical interventions such as attention bias modification programs, which require precise measures of attention bias to accurately assess treatment outcomes.

Improving Acceptability and Uptake Behavior for Internet-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.

Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) programs have the potential to improve access to mental healthcare, but they are not viewed as acceptable nor widely utilized by the general public. This study tested whether two acceptance-facilitating interventions improved acceptability and uptake-related behavior for therapist assisted and self-guided iCBT. Participants were randomly assigned to read a treatment rationale for iCBT (vs. a brief definition) and to receive a small financial incentive (or not) for seeking more information about evidence-based iCBT programs. Participants (N = 662) were a diverse group recruited from a University participant pool and the surrounding community. Participants completed standardized measures of attitudes toward and outcome expectancy for iCBT and a single question about willingness to use it and were given the opportunity to get information about accessing evidence-based iCBT programs. A series of MANCOVAs showed small, positive effects of the treatment rationale on attitudes and outcome expectancy for both self-guided and therapist-assisted iCBT, but not for willingness to use it. A hierarchical logistic regression model found no effect of the treatment rationale or financial incentive on whether participants sought additional information about how to access iCBT, although psychopathology symptoms and identifying as White or multiracial were positively associated with information-seeking. Inconsistent with past research, participants rated therapist-assisted and self-guided iCBT as equally acceptable. Participants recruited from the community reported greater willingness to use iCBT than University students. These results underscore the urgent need for further research toward improving the acceptability and uptake of iCBT so that it may better fulfill its potential to fill the gap in unmet mental health need.

Engagement with mobile health interventions for depression: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are a major public health problem, and many people face barriers to accessing evidence-based mental health treatment. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may circumvent logistical barriers to in-person care (e.g., cost, transportation), however the symptoms of depression (low motivation, concentration difficulties) may make it difficult for people with the disorder to engage with mHealth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to examine assessment and reporting of engagement in clinical trials of mHealth interventions for depression, including objective engagement (e.g., number of times program is used), subjective engagement (e.g., qualitative data on users' experiences), and associations between engagement and other clinically important variables (e.g., symptom improvement, participant characteristics). METHODS: Three electronic databases (PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed) were searched in February 2020 using search terms for mHealth and depression. Studies were included in the review if they tested a mHealth intervention designed for people with depressive disorders or elevated depression symptoms. RESULTS: Thirty studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Most studies reported objective engagement (N = 23, 76.7%), approximately half reported subjective engagement (N = 16, 53.3%), and relatively few examined associations between engagement and clinical improvement, participant characteristics, or other clinically relevant variables (N = 13, 43.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although most studies in this small but rapidly growing literature report at least one measure of engagement, there is substantial heterogeneity. Intentional, theory-driven, and consistent measurement of engagement with mHealth interventions for depression may advance the field's understanding of effective engagement to facilitate clinical improvement, identify dose-response relationships, and maximize generalizability for underserved populations.

Maximizing the impact of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders.

The impact of virtual reality on access to exposure therapy and recovery from anxiety is unrealized, but an argument can be made that this is about to change. Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders is safe, effective, and, in most cases, as effective as in vivo exposure therapy. Clinician attitudes toward virtual reality are now more positive than negative. Moderately priced virtual reality systems are commercially available. Self-guided and fully automated programs for specific fears are new, scalable, potentially game-changing developments. Future research that assesses cultural bias and external validity will position virtual reality exposure therapy to address mental health disparities, to realize its potential to increase access to effective treatment for anxiety disorders, and to improve public health.

Evaluating the reliability of attention bias and attention bias variability measures in the dot-probe task among people with social anxiety disorder.

The dot-probe task is a widely used experimental paradigm that evaluates attention biases within anxiety disorders. Considerable research has focused on improving the reliability of dot-probe scores because the task's original attention bias index has shown very low test-retest reliability. The current study serves as a replication and extension of Price et al. (2015), who systematically examined the effects of methodological choices on reliability of dot-probe task results. Fifty-six adults diagnosed with social anxiety disorder were asked to complete a facial dot-probe task twice, approximately 1 week apart. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were examined for 10 dot-probe attention bias indices across 55 sets of outlier cutoffs. Both Pearson's r and intraclass correlation coefficients were used. Trial-level bias score indices of mean bias toward threat and attention bias variability, which measure attention bias dynamically using individual pairs of trials, demonstrated the highest reliability and were less sensitive to changes in outlier cutoffs as compared with the dot probe's classic attention bias index and others. Results demonstrate the potential for post hoc outlier cutoff selection to artificially inflate reliability, particularly for unreliable indices. A priori cutoff selection is recommended for future research. Intraclass correlation coefficients are also recommended for assessment of reliability because Pearson's r does not account for poor agreement between scores. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).