One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7 16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT, 2023, Wright

Abstract

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.

Open access, https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/IBCT0609#/abstract

 

Treatment of simple phobia is the only area where I would concede that efficacy of CBT over doing nothing has been demonstrated. However, this is the easiest psychiatric disorder to treat, low hanging fruit. Evidence is a lot muddier for more complex anxiety disorders like panic with agoraphobia. For depression and other serious conditions, the evidence is as bad as for ME/CFS. When you take into account the bias due to lack of blinding, subjective outcomes, brainwashing to answer questionnaires in a positive way, you’re left with nothing.

 

It is true that one sip of homeopathic water is just as effective as 20. Or 10. Or 10,000,000.

And of course all this pretense about "limitations to their provision" is irrelevant considering that scripted apps are just as effective anyway, at least according to the same type of BS studies that boast of effectiveness in the first place, despite no such evidence. But this is an industry capable of both pretending that it's true that apps are just as good, but that "therapeutic alliance" and other BS is critical. Or whatever. It's all completely arbitrary anyway.