Background
Guided self-help (GSH) for anxiety is widely implemented in primary care services because of service efficiency gains, but there is also evidence of poor acceptability, low effectiveness and relapse.
Aims
The aim was to compare preferences for, acceptability and efficacy of cognitive–behavioural guided self-help (CBT-GSH) versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help (CAT-GSH).
Method
This was a pragmatic, randomised, patient preference trial (Clinical trials identifier: NCT03730532). The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was the primary outcome at 8- and 24-week follow-up. Interventions were delivered competently on the telephone via structured workbooks over 6–8 (30–35 min) sessions by trained practitioners.
Results
A total of 271 eligible participants were included, of whom 19 (7%) accepted being randomised and 252 (93%) chose their treatment. In the preference cohort, 181 (72%) chose CAT-GSH and 71 (28%) preferred CBT-GSH. BAI outcomes in the preference and randomised cohorts did not differ at 8 weeks (−0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) −4.52 to 2.92) or 24 weeks (0.85, 95% CI −2.87 to 4.57). After controlling for allocation method and baseline covariates, there were no differences between CAT-GSH and CBT-GSH at 8 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639) or at 24 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639). Mean BAI change from baseline was a reduction of 9.28 for CAT-GSH and 9.78 for CBT-GSH at 8 weeks and 12.90 for CAT-GSH and 12.43 for CBT-GSH at 24 weeks.
Conclusions
Patients accessing routine primary care talking treatments prefer to choose the intervention they receive. CAT-GSH expands the treatment offer in primary care for patients with anxiety seeking a brief but analytically informed GSH solution.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)