Two Novel Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Mobile Apps for Agoraphobia: Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Despite the large body of literature demonstrating the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatments for agoraphobia, many patients remain untreated because of various barriers to treatment. Web-based and mobile-based interventions targeting agoraphobia may provide a solution to this problem, but there is a lack of research investigating the efficacy of such interventions.

Objective

The objective of our study was to evaluate for the first time the effectiveness of a self-guided mobile-based intervention primarily targeting agoraphobic symptoms, with respect to a generic mobile app targeting anxiety.

Methods

A Web-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared a novel mobile app designed to target agoraphobia (called Agoraphobia Free) with a mobile app designed to help with symptoms of anxiety in general (called Stress Free). Both interventions were based on established cognitive behavioral principles. We recruited participants (N=170) who self-identified as having agoraphobia and assessed them online at baseline, midpoint, and end point (posttreatment) over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was symptom severity measured by the Panic and Agoraphobia Scale.

Results

Both groups had statistically significant improvements in symptom severity over time (difference –5.97, 95% CI –8.49 to –3.44, P<.001 for Agoraphobia Free and –6.35, 95% CI –8.82 to –3.87, P<.001 for Stress Free), but there were no significant between-group differences on the primary outcome (difference 0.38, 95% CI –1.96 to 3.20, P=.64).

Conclusions

This is, to our knowledge, the first RCT to provide evidence that people who identify as having agoraphobia may equally benefit from a diagnosis-specific and a transdiagnostic mobile-based intervention. We also discuss clinical and research implications for the development and dissemination of mobile mental health apps.

Trial Registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 98453199; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN98453199 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6uR5vsdZw)

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Twelve-month and lifetime prevalence and lifetime morbid risk of anxiety and mood disorders in the United States.

Ronald C Kessler, Maria Petukhova, Nancy Sampson … (2012)

Estimates of 12-month and lifetime prevalence and of lifetime morbid risk (LMR) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) anxiety and mood disorders are presented based on US epidemiological surveys among people aged 13+. The presentation is designed for use in the upcoming DSM-5 manual to provide more coherent estimates than would otherwise be available. Prevalence estimates are presented for the age groups proposed by DSM-5 workgroups as the most useful to consider for policy planning purposes. The LMR/12-month prevalence estimates ranked by frequency are as follows: major depressive episode: 29.9%/8.6%; specific phobia: 18.4/12.1%; social phobia: 13.0/7.4%; post-traumatic stress disorder: 10.1/3.7%; generalized anxiety disorder: 9.0/2.0%; separation anxiety disorder: 8.7/1.2%; panic disorder: 6.8%/2.4%; bipolar disorder: 4.1/1.8%; agoraphobia: 3.7/1.7%; obsessive-compulsive disorder: 2.7/1.2. Four broad patterns of results are most noteworthy: first, that the most common (lifetime prevalence/morbid risk) lifetime anxiety-mood disorders in the United States are major depression (16.6/29.9%), specific phobia (15.6/18.4%), and social phobia (10.7/13.0%) and the least common are agoraphobia (2.5/3.7%) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (2.3/2.7%); second, that the anxiety-mood disorders with the earlier median ages-of-onset are phobias and separation anxiety disorder (ages 15-17) and those with the latest are panic disorder, major depression, and generalized anxiety disorder (ages 23-30); third, that LMR is considerably higher than lifetime prevalence for most anxiety-mood disorders, although the magnitude of this difference is much higher for disorders with later than earlier ages-of-onset; and fourth, that the ratio of 12-month to lifetime prevalence, roughly characterizing persistence, varies meaningfully in ways consistent with independent evidence about differential persistence of these disorders. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 690 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Ralitza Gueorguieva, John Krystal (2004)

The analysis of repeated-measures data presents challenges to investigators and is a topic for ongoing discussion in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Traditional methods of statistical analysis (end-point analysis and univariate and multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance [rANOVA and rMANOVA, respectively]) have known disadvantages. More sophisticated mixed-effects models provide flexibility, and recently developed software makes them available to researchers. To review methods for repeated-measures analysis and discuss advantages and potential misuses of mixed-effects models. Also, to assess the extent of the shift from traditional to mixed-effects approaches in published reports in the Archives of General Psychiatry. The Archives of General Psychiatry from 1989 through 2001, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 425. Studies with a repeated-measures design, at least 2 groups, and a continuous response variable. The first author ranked the studies according to the most advanced statistical method used in the following order: mixed-effects model, rMANOVA, rANOVA, and end-point analysis. The use of mixed-effects models has substantially increased during the last 10 years. In 2001, 30% of clinical trials reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry used mixed-effects analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVAs continue to be used widely for the analysis of repeated-measures data, despite risks to interpretation. Mixed-effects models use all available data, can properly account for correlation between repeated measurements on the same subject, have greater flexibility to model time effects, and can handle missing data more appropriately. Their flexibility makes them the preferred choice for the analysis of repeated-measures data.

0 comments Cited 384 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

Systematic review and meta-analysis of transdiagnostic psychological treatments for anxiety and depressive disorders in adulthood.

Jill Newby, Anna McKinnon, Willem Kuyken … (2015)

A broad array of transdiagnostic psychological treatments for depressive and anxiety disorders have been evaluated, but existing reviews of this literature are restricted to face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) protocols. The current meta-analysis focused on studies evaluating clinician-guided internet/computerised or face-to-face manualised transdiagnostic treatments, to examine their effects on anxiety, depression and quality of life (QOL). Results from 50 studies showed that transdiagnostic treatments are efficacious, with large overall mean uncontrolled effects (pre- to post-treatment) for anxiety and depression (gs=.85 and .91 respectively), and medium for QOL (g=.69). Uncontrolled effect sizes were stable at follow-up. Results from 24 RCTs that met inclusion criteria showed that transdiagnostic treatments outperformed control conditions on all outcome measures (controlled ESs: gs=.65, .80, and .46 for anxiety, depression and QOL respectively), with the smallest differences found compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) control conditions. RCT quality was generally poor, and heterogeneity was high. Examination of the high heterogeneity revealed that CBT protocols were more effective than mindfulness/acceptance protocols for anxiety (uncontrolled ESs: gs=.88 and .61 respectively), but not depression. Treatment delivery format influenced outcomes for anxiety (uncontrolled ESs: group: g=.70, individual: g=.97, computer/internet: g=.96) and depression (uncontrolled ESs: group: g=.89, individual: g=.86, computer/internet: g=.96). Preliminary evidence from 4 comparisons with disorder-specific treatments suggests that transdiagnostic treatments are as effective for reducing anxiety, and may be superior for reducing depression. These findings show that transdiagnostic psychological treatments are efficacious, but higher quality research studies are needed to explore the sources of heterogeneity amongst treatment effects.

0 comments Cited 179 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Elias Tsakanikos:

Department of PsychologyUniversity of RoehamptonHolybourne AvenueLondon, SW15 4JDUnited Kingdom44 020 8392 3080elias.tsakanikos@roehampton.ac.uk

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7792-5402

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Internet Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Med. Internet Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMIR

Title: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Print): 1439-4456

ISSN (Electronic): 1438-8871

Publication date Collection: November 2017

Publication date (Electronic): 24 November 2017

Volume: 19

Issue: 11

Electronic Location Identifier: e398

Affiliations

[1] ¹ Division of Psychiatry University College London London United Kingdom

[2] ² Department of Psychology University of Roehampton London United Kingdom

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Elias Tsakanikos elias.tsakanikos@ 123456roehampton.ac.uk

Author information

Marina Christoforou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4841-2736

José Andrés Sáez Fonseca http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0373-3213

Elias Tsakanikos http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7792-5402

Article

Publisher ID: v19i11e398

DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7747

PMC ID: 5722980

PubMed ID: 29175809

SO-VID: b9b6878b-5fe0-4a2e-8eeb-c995d4e56fd2

License:

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 the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 23 March 2017

Date revision requested : 15 June 2017

Date revision received : 9 September 2017

Date accepted : 27 September 2017

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 19

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 579

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access