Loading…
Cognitive–behavioural versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help for mild-to-moderate anxiety: a pragmatic, randomised patient preference trial
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. The aim was to compare preferences for, acceptability and efficacy of cognitive-behavioural guided s...
Saved in:
Published in: | British journal of psychiatry 2023-09, Vol.223 (3), p.438-445 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753 |
container_end_page | 445 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 438 |
container_title | British journal of psychiatry |
container_volume | 223 |
creator | Kellett, Stephen Bee, Charlotte Smithies, Jess Aadahl, Vikki Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie Power, Niall Duggan-Williams, Caroline Fallon, Neil Delgadillo, Jaime |
description | 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.
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).
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.
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,
= 0.639) or at 24 weeks (
(1, 263) = 0.22,
= 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.
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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1192/bjp.2023.78 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10895510</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1192_bjp_2023_78</cupid><sourcerecordid>2859565883</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkc1u1DAUhSMEokNhxR5ZYoMEGfyb2N2gasSfVIkNrC07vsl4lMTBTkbMjnfoG_ZJ8KhDKYiVZZ_vHt97T1E8J3hNiKJv7W5aU0zZupYPihXhNS0Jr8TDYoUxrktCBT4rnqS0y1fGaf24OGM1U6LCeFVcb0I3-tnv4ebntYWt2fuwRNOjPcS0JNTck81o-sPsG9Qt3oFDCfq23EI_oTZENPjelXMoh-AgmhmQGX94mA8XyKApmm4wufQNimZ0YfAp10_5BcY5q9BChLEBNEdv-qfFo9b0CZ6dzvPi24f3XzefyqsvHz9vLq_KhlVMlm1jBLZEKkXbBnBlGeNYVphzC9xWFa0sd5Jg4pRynDLFrVLScsNr1bJasPPi3a3vtNgBXJN7yZPrKfrBxIMOxuu_ldFvdRf2mmCphCA4O7w6OcTwfYE06zxZA31vRghL0lQyKjkVFc_oy3_QXV503uiREjkNISXL1OtbqokhpbyXu24I1se0dU5bH9PWtcz0i_sD3LG_481AebIzg43edfDn1_8Z_gLusrl6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2859565883</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cognitive–behavioural versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help for mild-to-moderate anxiety: a pragmatic, randomised patient preference trial</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Cambridge University Press</source><creator>Kellett, Stephen ; Bee, Charlotte ; Smithies, Jess ; Aadahl, Vikki ; Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie ; Power, Niall ; Duggan-Williams, Caroline ; Fallon, Neil ; Delgadillo, Jaime</creator><creatorcontrib>Kellett, Stephen ; Bee, Charlotte ; Smithies, Jess ; Aadahl, Vikki ; Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie ; Power, Niall ; Duggan-Williams, Caroline ; Fallon, Neil ; Delgadillo, Jaime</creatorcontrib><description>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.
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).
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.
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,
= 0.639) or at 24 weeks (
(1, 263) = 0.22,
= 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.
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1250</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1472-1465</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-1465</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2023.78</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37395600</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Anxiety ; Anxiety - therapy ; Anxiety disorders ; Clinical research ; Clinical trials ; Cognition ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive behavioral therapy ; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - methods ; Cognitive-behavioral factors ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Efficacy ; General Adult ; Homework ; Humans ; Intervention ; Interviews ; Mental depression ; Mental health ; Patient Preference ; Patients ; Preferences ; Primary care ; Psychiatry ; Questionnaires ; Relapse ; Self help ; Talking ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>British journal of psychiatry, 2023-09, Vol.223 (3), p.438-445</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists</rights><rights>Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023 2023 The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6034-4495</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2859565883/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2859565883?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,12837,21385,21386,27915,27916,30990,33602,33603,34521,34522,43724,44106,72721,73982,74400</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37395600$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kellett, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bee, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smithies, Jess</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aadahl, Vikki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Power, Niall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duggan-Williams, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallon, Neil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delgadillo, Jaime</creatorcontrib><title>Cognitive–behavioural versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help for mild-to-moderate anxiety: a pragmatic, randomised patient preference trial</title><title>British journal of psychiatry</title><addtitle>Br J Psychiatry</addtitle><description>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.
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).
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.
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,
= 0.639) or at 24 weeks (
(1, 263) = 0.22,
= 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.
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.</description><subject>Anxiety</subject><subject>Anxiety - therapy</subject><subject>Anxiety disorders</subject><subject>Clinical research</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive behavioral therapy</subject><subject>Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Cognitive-behavioral factors</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Efficacy</subject><subject>General Adult</subject><subject>Homework</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Mental depression</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Patient Preference</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Relapse</subject><subject>Self help</subject><subject>Talking</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0007-1250</issn><issn>1472-1465</issn><issn>1472-1465</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNptkc1u1DAUhSMEokNhxR5ZYoMEGfyb2N2gasSfVIkNrC07vsl4lMTBTkbMjnfoG_ZJ8KhDKYiVZZ_vHt97T1E8J3hNiKJv7W5aU0zZupYPihXhNS0Jr8TDYoUxrktCBT4rnqS0y1fGaf24OGM1U6LCeFVcb0I3-tnv4ebntYWt2fuwRNOjPcS0JNTck81o-sPsG9Qt3oFDCfq23EI_oTZENPjelXMoh-AgmhmQGX94mA8XyKApmm4wufQNimZ0YfAp10_5BcY5q9BChLEBNEdv-qfFo9b0CZ6dzvPi24f3XzefyqsvHz9vLq_KhlVMlm1jBLZEKkXbBnBlGeNYVphzC9xWFa0sd5Jg4pRynDLFrVLScsNr1bJasPPi3a3vtNgBXJN7yZPrKfrBxIMOxuu_ldFvdRf2mmCphCA4O7w6OcTwfYE06zxZA31vRghL0lQyKjkVFc_oy3_QXV503uiREjkNISXL1OtbqokhpbyXu24I1se0dU5bH9PWtcz0i_sD3LG_481AebIzg43edfDn1_8Z_gLusrl6</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Kellett, Stephen</creator><creator>Bee, Charlotte</creator><creator>Smithies, Jess</creator><creator>Aadahl, Vikki</creator><creator>Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie</creator><creator>Power, Niall</creator><creator>Duggan-Williams, Caroline</creator><creator>Fallon, Neil</creator><creator>Delgadillo, Jaime</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6034-4495</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Cognitive–behavioural versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help for mild-to-moderate anxiety: a pragmatic, randomised patient preference trial</title><author>Kellett, Stephen ; Bee, Charlotte ; Smithies, Jess ; Aadahl, Vikki ; Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie ; Power, Niall ; Duggan-Williams, Caroline ; Fallon, Neil ; Delgadillo, Jaime</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Anxiety</topic><topic>Anxiety - therapy</topic><topic>Anxiety disorders</topic><topic>Clinical research</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive behavioral therapy</topic><topic>Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Cognitive-behavioral factors</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Efficacy</topic><topic>General Adult</topic><topic>Homework</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Mental depression</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Patient Preference</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Relapse</topic><topic>Self help</topic><topic>Talking</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kellett, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bee, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smithies, Jess</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aadahl, Vikki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Power, Niall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duggan-Williams, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fallon, Neil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delgadillo, Jaime</creatorcontrib><collection>CUP_剑桥大学出版社OA刊</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Psychology Journals (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kellett, Stephen</au><au>Bee, Charlotte</au><au>Smithies, Jess</au><au>Aadahl, Vikki</au><au>Simmonds-Buckley, Melanie</au><au>Power, Niall</au><au>Duggan-Williams, Caroline</au><au>Fallon, Neil</au><au>Delgadillo, Jaime</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cognitive–behavioural versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help for mild-to-moderate anxiety: a pragmatic, randomised patient preference trial</atitle><jtitle>British journal of psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>223</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>438</spage><epage>445</epage><pages>438-445</pages><issn>0007-1250</issn><issn>1472-1465</issn><eissn>1472-1465</eissn><abstract>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.
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).
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.
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,
= 0.639) or at 24 weeks (
(1, 263) = 0.22,
= 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.
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.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>37395600</pmid><doi>10.1192/bjp.2023.78</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6034-4495</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-1250 |
ispartof | British journal of psychiatry, 2023-09, Vol.223 (3), p.438-445 |
issn | 0007-1250 1472-1465 1472-1465 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10895510 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Sociology Collection; Cambridge University Press |
subjects | Anxiety Anxiety - therapy Anxiety disorders Clinical research Clinical trials Cognition Cognitive ability Cognitive behavioral therapy Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - methods Cognitive-behavioral factors Cost-Benefit Analysis Efficacy General Adult Homework Humans Intervention Interviews Mental depression Mental health Patient Preference Patients Preferences Primary care Psychiatry Questionnaires Relapse Self help Talking Treatment Outcome |
title | Cognitive–behavioural versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help for mild-to-moderate anxiety: a pragmatic, randomised patient preference trial |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T23%3A46%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cognitive%E2%80%93behavioural%20versus%20cognitive%E2%80%93analytic%20guided%20self-help%20for%20mild-to-moderate%20anxiety:%20a%20pragmatic,%20randomised%20patient%20preference%20trial&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20psychiatry&rft.au=Kellett,%20Stephen&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=223&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=438&rft.epage=445&rft.pages=438-445&rft.issn=0007-1250&rft.eissn=1472-1465&rft_id=info:doi/10.1192/bjp.2023.78&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2859565883%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3638-fca50b18992fce06b334086044be4b6626b4d8101d99d42394b998b4a479f3753%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2859565883&rft_id=info:pmid/37395600&rft_cupid=10_1192_bjp_2023_78&rfr_iscdi=true |