TY - JOUR
T1 - Group cognitive behavioral therapy and attention bias modification for childhood anxiety disorders
T2 - A factorial randomized trial of efficacy
AU - Salum, Giovanni A.
AU - Petersen, Circe S.
AU - Jarros, Rafaela B.
AU - Toazza, Rudineia
AU - Desousa, Diogo
AU - Borba, Lidiane Nunes
AU - Castro, Stela
AU - Gallegos, Julia
AU - Barrett, Paula
AU - Abend, Rany
AU - Bar-Haim, Yair
AU - Pine, Daniel S.
AU - Koller, Silvia H.
AU - Manfro, Gisele G.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: Brazilian government institutions—Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa do Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (FIPE-HCPA), Coordenac¸ão de Aperfeic¸oamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Fundac¸ão de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS). Funding sources have no role in conducting, analyzing, or interpreting the trial results.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers.
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2018/11/1
Y1 - 2018/11/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056715967&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056715967&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/cap.2018.0022
DO - 10.1089/cap.2018.0022
M3 - Article
C2 - 29969293
AN - SCOPUS:85056715967
SN - 1044-5463
VL - 28
SP - 620
EP - 630
JO - Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology
JF - Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology
IS - 9
ER -