34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cognitive–behaviour therapy for health anxiety in medical patients (CHAMP): a randomised controlled trial with outcomes to 5 years

      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

          Health anxiety is an under-recognised but frequent cause of distress that is potentially treatable, but there are few studies in secondary care.

          Objective

          To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive–behaviour therapy (CBT) for health anxiety (CBT-HA) compared with standard care in medical outpatients.

          Design

          Randomised controlled trial.

          Setting

          Five general hospitals in London, Middlesex and Nottinghamshire.

          Participants

          A total of 444 patients aged 16–75 years seen in cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, neurology and respiratory medicine clinics who scored ≥ 20 points on the Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) and satisfied diagnostic requirements for hypochondriasis. Those with current psychiatric disorders were excluded, but those with concurrent medical illnesses were not.

          Interventions

          Cognitive–behaviour therapy for health anxiety – between 4 and 10 1-hour sessions of CBT-HA from a health professional or psychologist trained in the treatment. Standard care was normal practice in primary and secondary care.

          Main outcome measures

          Primary – researchers masked to allocation assessed patients at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 months and 5 years. The primary outcome was change in the HAI score between baseline and 12 months. Main secondary outcomes – costs of care in the two groups after 24 and 60 months, change in health anxiety (HAI), generalised anxiety and depression [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)] scores, social functioning using the Social Functioning Questionnaire and quality of life using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months, and deaths over 5 years.

          Results

          Of the 28,991 patients screened over 21 months, 5769 had HAI scores of ≥ 20 points. Improvement in HAI scores at 3 months was significantly greater in the CBT-HA group (mean number of sessions = 6) than in the standard care, and this was maintained over the 5-year period (overall p < 0.0001), with no loss of efficacy between 2 and 5 years. Differences in the generalised anxiety ( p = 0.0018) and depression scores ( p = 0.0065) on the HADS were similar in both groups over the 5-year period. Gastroenterology and cardiology patients showed the greatest CBT gains. The outcomes for nurses were superior to those of other therapists. Deaths ( n = 24) were similar in both groups; those in standard care died earlier than those in CBT-HA. Patients with mild personality disturbance and higher dependence levels had the best outcome with CBT-HA. Total costs were similar in both groups over the 5-year period (£12,590.58 for CBT-HA; £13,334.94 for standard care). CBT-HA was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, as measured using the EQ-5D, but was cost-effective in terms of HAI outcomes, and offset the cost of treatment.

          Limitations

          Many eligible patients were not randomised and the population treated may not be representative.

          Conclusions

          CBT-HA is a highly effective treatment for pathological health anxiety with lasting benefit over 5 years. It also improves generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms more than standard care. The presence of personality abnormality is not a bar to successful outcome. CBT-HA may also be cost-effective, but the high costs of concurrent medical illnesses obscure potential savings. This treatment deserves further research in medical settings.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14565822.

          Funding

          This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

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

          The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis.

          A self-rated measure of health anxiety should be sensitive across the full range of intensity (from mild concern to frank hypochondriasis) and should differentiate people suffering from health anxiety from those who have actual physical illness but who are not excessively concerned about their health. It should also encompass the full range of clinical symptoms characteristic of clinical hypochondriasis. The development and validation of such a scale is described. Three studies were conducted. First, the questionnaire was validated by comparing the responses of patients suffering from hypochondriasis with those suffering from hypochondriasis and panic disorder, panic disorder, social phobia and non-patient controls. Secondly, a state version of the questionnaire was administered to patients undergoing cognitive-behavioural treatment or wait-list in order to examine the measure's sensitivity to change. In the third study, a shortened version was developed and validated in similar types of sample, and in a range of samples of people seeking medical help for physical illness. The scale was found to be reliable and to have a high internal consistency. Hypochondriacal patients scored significantly higher than anxiety disorder patients, including both social phobic patients and panic disorder patients as well as normal controls. In the second study, a 'state' version of the scale was found to be sensitive to treatment effects, and to correlate very highly with a clinician rating based on an interview of present clinical state. A development and refinement of the scale (intended to reflect more fully the range of symptoms of and reactions to hypochondriasis) was found to be reliable and valid. A very short (14 item) version of the scale was found to have comparable properties to the full length scale. The HAI is a reliable and valid measure of health anxiety. It is likely to be useful as a brief screening instrument, as there is a short form which correlates highly with the longer version.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Somatization increases medical utilization and costs independent of psychiatric and medical comorbidity.

            Somatoform disorders are an important determinant of medical care utilization, but their independent effect on utilization is difficult to determine because somatizing patients frequently have psychiatric and medical comorbidity. To assess the extent of the overlap of somatization with other psychiatric disorders; to compare the medical utilization of somatizing and nonsomatizing patients; and to determine the independent contribution of somatization alone to utilization. Patients were surveyed with self-report questionnaires assessing somatization and psychiatric disorder. Medical care utilization was obtained from automated encounter data for the year preceding the index visit. Medical morbidity was indexed with a computerized medical record audit. Two hospital-affiliated primary care practices. Consecutive adults making scheduled visits to their primary care physicians on randomly chosen days. In all, 2668 questionnaires were distributed, and 1914 (71.7%) were returned. Of these, 1546 (80.8%) contained complete data and met eligibility criteria. Medical care utilization and costs within our hospital system in the preceding 12 months. Two hundred ninety-nine patients (20.5%) received a provisional diagnosis of somatization; 42.3% of these patients had no comorbid depressive or anxiety disorder. Somatizing patients, when compared with nonsomatizing patients, had more primary care visits (mean [SE], 4.90 [0.32] vs 3.43 [0.11]; P<.001); more specialty visits (mean [SE], 8.13 [0.55] vs 4.90 [0.21]; P<.001); more emergency department visits (mean [SE], 1.29 [0.15] vs 0.52 [0.036]; P<.001); more hospital admissions (mean [SE], 0.32 [0.051] vs 0.13 [0.014]; P<.001); higher inpatient costs (mean [SE], USD 3146 [USD 380] vs USD 991 [USD 193]; P<.001); and higher outpatient costs (mean [SE], USD 3208 [USD 180] vs USD 1771 [USD 91]; P<.001). When these results were adjusted for the presence of comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders, major medical morbidity, and sociodemographic characteristics, patients with somatoform disorder still had more primary care visits (P = .04), more specialist visits (P = .002), more emergency department visits (P<.001), more hospital admissions (P<.001), more ambulatory procedures (P<.001), higher inpatient costs (P<.001), and higher outpatient costs (P<.001). When these findings are extrapolated to the national level, an estimated USD 256 billion a year in medical care costs are attributable to the incremental effect of somatization alone. Patients with somatization had approximately twice the outpatient and inpatient medical care utilization and twice the annual medical care costs of nonsomatizing patients. Adjusting the findings for the presence of psychiatric and medical comorbidity had relatively little effect on this association.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease.

              There may be some discussion about whether indirect costs should be taken into account at all in an economic appraisal, but there is certainly considerable debate about the proper way of estimating these costs. This reviews offers a practical guide for quantifying and valuing these indirect costs of disease, both at an aggregated level of general cost of illness studies, and in an economic appraisal of specific healthcare programmes. Two methods of calculating these costs are considered: the traditional human capital approach, and the more recently developed friction cost method. The former method estimates the potential value of lost production as a result of disease, whereas the latter method intends to derive more realistic estimates of indirect costs, taking into account the degree of scarcity of labour in the economy. All necessary steps in the estimation procedure and the data required at various points will be described and discussed in detail.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Technology Assessment
                Health Technol Assess
                National Institute for Health Research
                1366-5278
                2046-4924
                September 2017
                September 2017
                : 21
                : 50
                : 1-58
                Article
                10.3310/hta21500
                5601246
                28877841
                6331f1e2-29ab-4c33-8c81-9bac202628b1
                © 2017

                http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article