13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit your manuscript, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing the Effectiveness of Education Versus Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adults With Sickle Cell Disease: Protocol for the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Real-time Pain Management Intervention for Sickle Cell via Mobile Applications (CaRISMA) Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) experience significant medical and psychological stressors that affect their mental health, well-being, and disease outcomes. Digital cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been used in other patient populations and has demonstrated clinical benefits. Although evidence-based, nonpharmacological interventions for pain management are widely used in other populations, these treatments have not been well studied in SCD. Currently, there are no adequately powered large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness and dissemination potential of behavioral pain management for adults with SCD. Furthermore, some important details regarding behavioral therapies in SCD remain unclear—in particular, what works best for whom and when.

          Objective

          Our primary goal is to compare the effectiveness of two smartphone–delivered programs for reducing SCD pain symptoms: digital CBT versus pain and SCD education (Education). Our secondary goal is to assess whether baseline depression symptoms moderate the effect of interventions on pain outcomes. We hypothesize that digital CBT will confer greater benefits on pain outcomes and depressive symptoms at 6 months and a greater reduction in health care use (eg, opioid prescriptions or refills or acute care visits) over 12 months.

          Methods

          The CaRISMA (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Real-time Pain Management Intervention for Sickle Cell via Mobile Applications) study is a multisite comparative effectiveness trial funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. CaRISMA is conducted at six clinical academic sites, in partnership with four community-based organizations. CaRISMA will evaluate the effectiveness of two 12-week health coach–supported digital health programs with a total of 350 participants in two groups: CBT (n=175) and Education (n=175). Participants will complete a series of questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome will be the change in pain interference between the study arms. We will also evaluate changes in pain intensity, depressive symptoms, other patient-reported outcomes, and health care use as secondary outcomes. We have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.37 SDs between study arms on 6-month changes in the outcomes with 15% expected attrition at 6 months. An exploratory analysis will examine whether baseline depression symptoms moderate the effect of the intervention on pain interference.

          Results

          This study will be conducted from March 2021 through February 2022, with results expected to be available in February 2023.

          Conclusions

          Patients with SCD experience significant disease burden, psychosocial stress, and impairment of their quality of life. CaRISMA proposes to leverage digital technology and overcome barriers to the routine use of behavioral treatments for pain and depressive symptoms in the treatment of adults with SCD. The study will provide data on the comparative effectiveness of digital CBT and Education approaches and evaluate the potential for implementing evidence-based behavioral interventions to manage SCD pain.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04419168; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04419168.

          International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

          PRR1-10.2196/29014

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Patient Health Questionnaire Somatic, Anxiety, and Depressive Symptom Scales: a systematic review.

            Depression, anxiety and somatization are the most common mental disorders in primary care as well as medical specialty populations; each is present in at least 5-10% of patients and frequently comorbid with one another. An efficient means for measuring and monitoring all three conditions would be desirable. Evidence regarding the psychometric and pragmatic characteristics of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)-7 anxiety and PHQ-15 somatic symptom scales are synthesized from two sources: (1) four multisite cross-sectional studies (three conducted in primary care and one in obstetric-gynecology practices) comprising 9740 patients, and (2) key studies from the literature that have studied these scales. The PHQ-9 and its abbreviated eight-item (PHQ-8) and two-item (PHQ-2) versions have good sensitivity and specificity for detecting depressive disorders. Likewise, the GAD-7 and its abbreviated two-item (GAD-2) version have good operating characteristics for detecting generalized anxiety, panic, social anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The optimal cutpoint is > or = 10 on the parent scales (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and > or = 3 on the ultra-brief versions (PHQ-2 and GAD-2). The PHQ-15 is equal or superior to other brief measures for assessing somatic symptoms and screening for somatoform disorders. Cutpoints of 5, 10 and 15 represent mild, moderate and severe symptom levels on all three scales. Sensitivity to change is well-established for the PHQ-9 and emerging albeit not yet definitive for the GAD-7 and PHQ-15. The PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PHQ-15 are brief well-validated measures for detecting and monitoring depression, anxiety and somatization. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population.

              The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) is a practical self-report anxiety questionnaire that proved valid in primary care. However, the GAD-7 was not yet validated in the general population and thus far, normative data are not available. To investigate reliability, construct validity, and factorial validity of the GAD-7 in the general population and to generate normative data. Nationally representative face-to-face household survey conducted in Germany between May 5 and June 8, 2006. Five thousand thirty subjects (53.6% female) with a mean age (SD) of 48.4 (18.0) years. The survey questionnaire included the GAD-7, the 2-item depression module from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and demographic characteristics. Confirmatory factor analyses substantiated the 1-dimensional structure of the GAD-7 and its factorial invariance for gender and age. Internal consistency was identical across all subgroups (alpha = 0.89). Intercorrelations with the PHQ-2 and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were r = 0.64 (P < 0.001) and r = -0.43 (P < 0.001), respectively. As expected, women had significantly higher mean (SD) GAD-7 anxiety scores compared with men [3.2 (3.5) vs. 2.7 (3.2); P < 0.001]. Normative data for the GAD-7 were generated for both genders and different age levels. Approximately 5% of subjects had GAD-7 scores of 10 or greater, and 1% had GAD-7 scores of 15 or greater. Evidence supports reliability and validity of the GAD-7 as a measure of anxiety in the general population. The normative data provided in this study can be used to compare a subject's GAD-7 score with those determined from a general population reference group.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Res Protoc
                JMIR Res Protoc
                ResProt
                JMIR Research Protocols
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1929-0748
                May 2021
                14 May 2021
                : 10
                : 5
                : e29014
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Pediatrics Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago, IL United States
                [2 ] Division of Hematology, Oncology and Stem Cell Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Chicago, IL United States
                [3 ] Department of Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA United States
                [4 ] Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children Lawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada
                [5 ] Child Health Evaluation Sciences Hospital for Sick Children Toronto, ON Canada
                [6 ] Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada
                [7 ] Johns Hopkins Sickle Cell Center for Adults Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Baltimore, MD United States
                [8 ] Sickle Cell Center, Department of Medicine University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL United States
                [9 ] Ohio State Adult Sickle Cell Program Division of Hematology Ohio State University Columbus, OH United States
                [10 ] Division of Hematology Duke University School of Medicine Durham, NC United States
                [11 ] Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Duke University School of Medicine Durham, NC United States
                [12 ] Department of Internal Medicine East Carolina University Greenville, NC United States
                [13 ] Sickle Cell 101 San Jose, CA United States
                [14 ] Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Charles R Jonassaint cjonassaint@ 123456pitt.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4739-265X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3644-8419
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6775-0808
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1563-1003
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7842-5290
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9969-8052
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2794-7061
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7511-916X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8584-4194
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4725-7295
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1038-2500
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7506-0935
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-7887
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4481-9424
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5662-5806
                Article
                v10i5e29014
                10.2196/29014
                8164118
                33988517
                25ea22d5-0ba4-4336-aa82-9a1aa064f0db
                ©Sherif M Badawy, Kaleab Z Abebe, Charlotte A Reichman, Grace Checo, Megan E Hamm, Jennifer Stinson, Chitra Lalloo, Patrick Carroll, Santosh L Saraf, Victor R Gordeuk, Payal Desai, Nirmish Shah, Darla Liles, Cassandra Trimnell, Charles R Jonassaint. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 14.05.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 24 March 2021
                : 26 March 2021
                : 29 March 2021
                : 29 March 2021
                Categories
                Protocol
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                This paper was peer reviewed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. See the Multimedia Appendices for the peer-review report;

                sickle cell anemia,sickle cell disease,pain,depression,depressive symptoms,quality of life,digital,mhealth,ehealth,cbt,cognitive behavioral therapy,education,mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article