Evidence-Based Reviews

Generalized anxiety disorder: 8 studies of psychosocial interventions

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Conclusions/limitations

  • iCBT may be a useful and accessible approach for treating GAD, although there are still hindrances to its use.
  • This study was qualitative and did not comment on the efficacy of the applied intervention.
  • The benefits of iCBT may differ depending on the patient’s level of computer literacy.

7. Miller CB, Gu J, Henry AL, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of a digital CBT intervention for symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized multiple-baseline study. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2021;70:101609. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2020.101609

Access to CBT is limited due to cost, dearth of trained therapists, scheduling availability, stigma, and transportation. Digital CBT may help overcome these obstacles. Miller et al11 studied the feasibility and efficacy of a new automated, digital CBT intervention named Daylight.

Study design

  • This randomized, multiple-baseline, single-case, experimental trial included 21 adults (20 women) age ≥18 who scored ≥10 on the GAD-7 and screened positive for GAD on MINI version 7 for DSM-5.
  • Participants were not taking psychotropic medications or had been on a stable medication regimen for ≥4 weeks.
  • Exclusion criteria included past or present psychosis, schizophrenia, BD, seizure disorder, substance use disorder, trauma to the head or brain damage, severe cognitive impairment, serious physical health concerns necessitating surgery or with prognosis <6 months, and pregnancy.
  • Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 baseline durations: 2 weeks, 4 weeks, or 6 weeks. They then could access the smartphone program Daylight. The trial lasted for 12 to 16 weeks.
  • Primary anxiety outcomes were assessed daily and weekly, while secondary outcomes (depressive symptoms, sleep) were measured weekly.
  • Postintervention was defined as 6 weeks after the start of the intervention and follow-up was 10 weeks after the start of the intervention.
  • Participants were deemed not to have clinically significant anxiety if they scored <10 on GAD-7; not to have significant depressive symptoms if they scored <10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); and not to have sleep difficulty if they scored >16 on the Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI-8). The change was considered reliable if patients scored below the previously discussed thresholds and showed a difference in score greater than the known unreliability of the questionnaire (GAD-7 reductions ≥5, PHQ-9 reductions ≥6, SCI-8 increases ≥7).

Outcomes

  • In terms of feasibility, 76% of participants completed all 4 modules, 81% completed 3 modules, 86% completed 2 modules, and all participants completed at least 1 module.
  • No serious adverse events were observed, but 43% of participants reported unwanted symptoms such as agitation, fatigue, low mood, or reduced motivation.
  • As evaluated by the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire, the program received moderate to high credibility scores. Participants indicated they were mostly satisfied with the program, although some expressed technical difficulties and a lack of specificity to their anxiety symptoms.
  • Overall daily anxiety scores significantly decreased from baseline to postinter­vention (P < .001). Weekly anxiety scores significantly decreased from baseline to postintervention (P = .024), and follow-up (P = .017) as measured by the GAD-7.
  • For participants with anxiety, 70% no longer had clinically significant anxiety symptoms postintervention, and 65% had both clinically significant and reliable change at postintervention. Eighty percent had clinically significant and reliable change at follow-up.
  • For participants with depressive symptoms, 61% had clinical and reliable change at postintervention and 44% maintained both at follow-up.
  • For participants with sleep disturbances, 35% had clinical and reliable improvement at postintervention and 40% had clinical and reliable change at follow-up.

Conclusions/limitations

  • Daylight appears to be a feasible program with regards to acceptability, engagement, credibility, satisfaction, and safety.
  • The daily and weekly outcomes support preliminary evidence of program efficacy in improving GAD symptoms.
  • Most participants identified as female and were recruited online, which limits generalizability, and the study had a small sample size.

Continue to: #8

Pages

Next Article: