Telephone-Based versus In-Person Delivery of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Veterans with Chronic Multisymptom Illness: A Controlled, Randomized Trial

Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects.

RESULTS

We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07).

INTERPRETATION

Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc).

The efficacy of telephone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy in people with chronic illnesses and mental diseases: A meta-analysis

COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase of remote treatments, such as telephone-delivery cognitive behavioral therapy (T-CBT). To our knowledge, no meta-analyses studied the effect of T-CBT in chronic and/or mental illnesses on multiple psychological outcomes. Therefore, our study aims to evaluating the efficacy of T-CBT compared to other interventions (treatment as usual, TAU, or face-to-face CBT). Each effect size (ES) was calculated in Hedges' g and pooled together to produce a mean ES for each outcome (depression, anxiety, mental and physical QoL, worry, coping, and sleep disturbances). The meta-analysis included 33 studies with a randomized controlled trial design. A large ES was found when comparing the efficacy of T-CBT against TAU on depression (g = 0.84, p < 0.001), whereas a moderate ES was found on anxiety (g = 0.57; p < 0.001), and a small effect on mental quality of life (g = 0.33, p < 0.001), sleep disturbances (g = 0.37, p = 0.042), coping (g = 0.20, p = 0.016) and worry (g = 0.43, p = 0.001). The meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of T-CBT and CBT on depression revealed a not significant pooled ES (g = 0.06, p = 0.466). The results provided evidence that T-CBT could be to be more effective than TAU conditions in multiple psychological outcomes, and as efficient as face-to-face CBT in treating depression.

Effect of Problem-solving Treatment on Self-reported Disability Among Veterans With Gulf War Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Few evidence-based treatments are available for Gulf War illness (GWI). Behavioral treatments that target factors known to maintain the disability from GWI, such as problem-solving impairment, may be beneficial. Problem-solving treatment (PST) targets problem-solving impairment and is an evidence-based treatment for other conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of PST to reduce disability, problem-solving impairment, and physical symptoms in GWI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in the US Department of Veterans Affairs compared PST with health education in a volunteer sample of 511 Gulf War veterans with GWI and disability (January 1, 2015, to September 1, 2019); outcomes were assessed at 12 weeks and 6 months. Statistical analysis was conducted between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Problem-solving treatment taught skills to improve problem-solving. Health education provided didactic health information. Both were delivered by telephone weekly for 12 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction from baseline to 12 weeks in self-report of disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule). Secondary outcomes were reductions in self-report of problem-solving impairment and objective problem-solving. Exploratory outcomes were reductions in pain, pain disability, and fatigue.

RESULTS

A total of 268 veterans (mean [SD] age, 52.9 [7.3] years; 88.4% male; 66.8% White) were randomized to PST (n = 135) or health education (n = 133). Most participants completed all 12 sessions of PST (114 of 135 [84.4%]) and health education (120 of 133 [90.2%]). No difference was found between groups in reductions in disability at the end of treatment. Results suggested that PST reduced problem-solving impairment (moderate effect, 0.42; P = .01) and disability at 6 months (moderate effect, 0.39; P = .06) compared with health education.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of the efficacy of PST for GWI, no difference was found between groups in reduction in disability at 12 weeks. Problem-solving treatment had high adherence and reduced problem-solving impairment and potentially reduced disability at 6 months compared with health education. These findings should be confirmed in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02161133.

Telehealth Versus Face-to-face Psychotherapy for Less Common Mental Health Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Mental disorders are a leading cause of distress and disability worldwide. To meet patient demand, there is a need for increased access to high-quality, evidence-based mental health care. Telehealth has become well established in the treatment of illnesses, including mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a robust evidence synthesis to assess whether there is evidence of differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for the management of less common mental and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we included randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth (telephone, video, or both) versus the face-to-face delivery of psychotherapy for less common mental health conditions and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. The psychotherapy delivered had to be comparable between the telehealth and face-to-face groups, and it had to be delivered by general practitioners, primary care nurses, or allied health staff (such as psychologists and counselors). Patient (symptom severity, overall improvement in psychological symptoms, and function), process (working alliance and client satisfaction), and financial (cost) outcomes were included.

RESULTS

A total of 12 randomized controlled trials were included, with 931 patients in aggregate; therapies included cognitive behavioral and family therapies delivered in populations encompassing addiction disorders, eating disorders, childhood mental health problems, and chronic conditions. Telehealth was delivered by video in 7 trials, by telephone in 3 trials, and by both in 1 trial, and the delivery mode was unclear in 1 trial. The risk of bias for the 12 trials was low or unclear for most domains, except for the lack of the blinding of participants, owing to the nature of the comparison. There were no significant differences in symptom severity between telehealth and face-to-face therapy immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27) or at any other follow-up time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences immediately after treatment between telehealth and face-to-face care delivery on any of the other outcomes meta-analyzed, including overall improvement (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.39), function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.42), working alliance client (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.57), working alliance therapist (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.59), and client satisfaction (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.53), or at any other time point (3, 6, and 12 months).

CONCLUSIONS

With regard to effectively treating less common mental health conditions and physical conditions requiring psychological support, there is insufficient evidence of a difference between psychotherapy delivered via telehealth and the same therapy delivered face-to-face. However, there was no includable evidence in this review for some serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and further high-quality research is needed to determine whether telehealth is a viable, equivalent treatment option for these conditions.

Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms: What They Are and Why Counseling Psychologists Should Care about Them

Medically unexplained symptoms and syndromes (MUS) affect the health of 20%-30% of patients seen in primary care. Optimally, treatment for these patients requires an interdisciplinary team consisting of both primary care and mental health providers. By developing an expertise in MUS, counseling psychologists can improve the care of patients with MUS who are already in their practice, expand the number of patients they help, and enhance the integration of counseling psychology into the broader medical community. Additionally, counseling psychologists' expertise in culture, attunement to therapeutic processes, and our focus on prioritizing patients' perspectives and quality of life can fill the gap in research on MUS and bringing increased attention to counseling psychologists' unique contributions to health service delivery.