Anna Dt Muntingh

Background: Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients’ preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients’ preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. Objective: The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. Methods: The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. Results: A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (β=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (β=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms. Conclusions: Although the core modules of the GET READY program were used by most of the patients and all patients saw an MHP at least once, usage decreased quickly over time. Most patients remained stable while participating in the study. The significant association between the frequency of contact and the course of symptoms most likely indicates that those who received more support had more symptoms, and thus, it is questionable whether the support offered by the program was sufficient to prevent these patients from relapsing.

Background: In recent years, virtual reality exposure–based cognitive behavioral therapy (VRE-CBT) has shown good treatment results in (subclinical) anxiety disorders and seems to be a good alternative to exposure in vivo in regular cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, previous meta-analyses on the efficacy of VRE-CBT on anxiety disorders have included studies on specific phobias and subthreshold anxiety; therefore, these results may not be generalizable to patients with more severe and disabling anxiety disorders. Objective: The objective of our study is to determine the efficacy of VRE-CBT on more severe anxiety disorders, excluding specific phobias and subthreshold anxiety disorders. Meta-analyses will be conducted to examine the efficacy of VRE-CBT versus waitlist and regular CBT. Our secondary objectives are to examine whether the efficacy differs according to the type of anxiety disorder, type of recruitment, and type of VRE-CBT (virtual reality exposure either with or without regular CBT). Furthermore, attrition in VRE-CBT and CBT will be compared. Methods: Studies published until August 20, 2020, were retrieved through systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase. We calculated the effect sizes (Hedges g) for the difference between the conditions and their 95% CIs for posttest and follow-up measurements in a random effects model. A separate meta-analysis was performed to compare attrition between the VRE-CBT and CBT conditions. Results: A total of 16 trials with 817 participants were included. We identified 10 comparisons between VRE-CBT and a waitlist condition and 13 comparisons between VRE-CBT and a CBT condition. With regard to risk of bias, information on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and risk of bias for selective outcome reporting was often absent or unclear. The mean effect size of VRE-CBT compared with waitlist (nco=10) was medium and significant, favoring VRE-CBT (Hedges g=−0.490, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.16; P=.003). The mean effect size of VRE-CBT compared with CBT (nco=13) was small and nonsignificant, favoring CBT (Hedges g=0.083, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.30; P=.45). The dropout rates between VRE-CBT and CBT (nco=10) showed no significant difference (odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.49-1.27; P=.32). There were no indications of small study effects or publication bias. Conclusions: The results of our study show that VRE-CBT is more effective than waitlist and as effective as CBT in the treatment of more severe anxiety disorders. Therefore, VRE-CBT may be considered a promising alternative to CBT for patients with more severe anxiety disorders. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the robustness of these findings.

Background: Existing studies have yet to investigate the perspectives of patients and professionals concerning relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in primary care. User opinions should be considered when optimizing the use and implementation of interventions. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the GET READY relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in general practice. Methods: Semistructured interviews (N=26) and focus group interviews (N=2) with patients and mental health professionals (MHPs) in the Netherlands were performed. Patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders and their MHPs who participated in the GET READY study were interviewed individually. Findings from the interviews were tested in focus group interviews with patients and MHPs. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants were positive about the program because it created awareness of relapse risks. Lack of motivation, lack of recognizability, lack of support from the MHP, and symptom severity (too low or too high) appeared to be limiting factors in the use of the program. MHPs play a crucial role in motivating and supporting patients in relapse prevention. The perspectives of patients and MHPs were largely in accordance, although they had different perspectives concerning responsibilities for taking initiative. Conclusions: The implementation of the GET READY program was challenging. Guidance from MHPs should be offered for relapse prevention programs based on eHealth. Both MHPs and patients should align their expectations concerning responsibilities in advance to ensure optimal usage. Usage of blended relapse prevention programs may be further enhanced by diagnosis-specific programs and easily accessible support from MHPs.

BACKGROUND In recent years, virtual reality exposure–based cognitive behavioral therapy (VRE-CBT) has shown good treatment results in (subclinical) anxiety disorders and seems to be a good alternative to exposure in vivo in regular cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). However, previous meta-analyses on the efficacy of VRE-CBT on anxiety disorders have included studies on specific phobias and subthreshold anxiety; therefore, these results may not be generalizable to patients with more severe and disabling anxiety disorders. OBJECTIVE The objective of our study is to determine the efficacy of VRE-CBT on more severe anxiety disorders, excluding specific phobias and subthreshold anxiety disorders. Meta-analyses will be conducted to examine the efficacy of VRE-CBT versus waitlist and regular CBT. Our secondary objectives are to examine whether the efficacy differs according to the type of anxiety disorder, type of recruitment, and type of VRE-CBT (virtual reality exposure either with or without regular CBT). Furthermore, attrition in VRE-CBT and CBT will be compared. METHODS Studies published until August 20, 2020, were retrieved through systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase. We calculated the effect sizes (Hedges g) for the difference between the conditions and their 95% CIs for posttest and follow-up measurements in a random effects model. A separate meta-analysis was performed to compare attrition between the VRE-CBT and CBT conditions. RESULTS A total of 16 trials with 817 participants were included. We identified 10 comparisons between VRE-CBT and a waitlist condition and 13 comparisons between VRE-CBT and a CBT condition. With regard to risk of bias, information on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and risk of bias for selective outcome reporting was often absent or unclear. The mean effect size of VRE-CBT compared with waitlist (nco=10) was medium and significant, favoring VRE-CBT (Hedges g=−0.490, 95% CI −0.82 to −0.16; P=.003). The mean effect size of VRE-CBT compared with CBT (nco=13) was small and nonsignificant, favoring CBT (Hedges g=0.083, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.30; P=.45). The dropout rates between VRE-CBT and CBT (nco=10) showed no significant difference (odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.49-1.27; P=.32). There were no indications of small study effects or publication bias. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study show that VRE-CBT is more effective than waitlist and as effective as CBT in the treatment of more severe anxiety disorders. Therefore, VRE-CBT may be considered a promising alternative to CBT for patients with more severe anxiety disorders. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify the robustness of these findings.

BACKGROUND Given that relapse is common in patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders, relapse prevention is needed in the maintenance phase. Although existing psychological relapse prevention interventions have proven to be effective, they are not explicitly based on patients’ preferences. Hence, we developed a blended relapse prevention program based on patients’ preferences, which was delivered in primary care practices by mental health professionals (MHPs). This program comprises contact with MHPs, completion of core and optional online modules (including a relapse prevention plan), and keeping a mood and anxiety diary in which patients can monitor their symptoms. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were to provide insight into (1) usage intensity of the program (over time), (2) the course of symptoms during the 9 months of the study, and (3) the association between usage intensity and the course of symptoms. METHODS The Guided E-healTh for RElapse prevention in Anxiety and Depression (GET READY) program was guided by 54 MHPs working in primary care practices. Patients in remission from anxiety and depressive disorders were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, were collected via questionnaires at baseline and after 3, 6, and 9 months. Log data were collected to assess the usage intensity of the program. RESULTS A total of 113 patients participated in the study. Twenty-seven patients (23.9%) met the criteria for the minimal usage intensity measure. The core modules were used by ≥70% of the patients, while the optional modules were used by <40% of the patients. Usage decreased quickly over time. Anxiety and depressive symptoms remained stable across the total sample; a minority of 15% (12/79) of patients experienced a relapse in their anxiety symptoms, while 10% (8/79) experienced a relapse in their depressive symptoms. Generalized estimating equations analysis indicated a significant association between more frequent face-to-face contact with the MHPs and an increase in both anxiety symptoms (β=.84, 95% CI .39-1.29) and depressive symptoms (β=1.12, 95% CI 0.45-1.79). Diary entries and the number of completed modules were not significantly associated with the course of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Although the core modules of the GET READY program were used by most of the patients and all patients saw an MHP at least once, usage decreased quickly over time. Most patients remained stable while participating in the study. The significant association between the frequency of contact and the course of symptoms most likely indicates that those who received more support had more symptoms, and thus, it is questionable whether the support offered by the program was sufficient to prevent these patients from relapsing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6

BACKGROUND Existing studies have yet to investigate the perspectives of patients and professionals concerning relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in primary care. User opinions should be considered when optimizing the use and implementation of interventions. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the GET READY relapse prevention programs for patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders in general practice. METHODS Semistructured interviews (N=26) and focus group interviews (N=2) with patients and mental health professionals (MHPs) in the Netherlands were performed. Patients with remitted anxiety or depressive disorders and their MHPs who participated in the GET READY study were interviewed individually. Findings from the interviews were tested in focus group interviews with patients and MHPs. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Participants were positive about the program because it created awareness of relapse risks. Lack of motivation, lack of recognizability, lack of support from the MHP, and symptom severity (too low or too high) appeared to be limiting factors in the use of the program. MHPs play a crucial role in motivating and supporting patients in relapse prevention. The perspectives of patients and MHPs were largely in accordance, although they had different perspectives concerning responsibilities for taking initiative. CONCLUSIONS The implementation of the GET READY program was challenging. Guidance from MHPs should be offered for relapse prevention programs based on eHealth. Both MHPs and patients should align their expectations concerning responsibilities in advance to ensure optimal usage. Usage of blended relapse prevention programs may be further enhanced by diagnosis-specific programs and easily accessible support from MHPs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1186/s12888-019-2034-6

This article offers advice to clinicians on approaches to treating comorbid anxiety and depression.

Anxiety and depressive disorders are increasingly being viewed as chronic conditions with fluctuating symptom levels. Relapse prevention programmes are needed to increase self-management and prevent relapse. Fine-tuning relapse prevention programmes to the needs of patients may increase uptake and effectiveness. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted amongst patients with a partially or fully remitted anxiety or depressive disorder. Patients were presented 20 choice tasks with two hypothetical treatment scenarios for relapse prevention, plus a “no treatment” option. Each treatment scenario was based on seven attributes of a hypothetical but realistic relapse prevention programme. Attributes considered professional contact frequency, treatment type, delivery mode, programme flexibility, a personal relapse prevention plan, time investment and effectiveness. Choice models were estimated to analyse the data. A total of 109 patients with a partially or fully remitted anxiety or depressive disorder completed the DCE. Attributes with the strongest impact on choice were high effectiveness, regular contact with a professional, low time investment and the inclusion of a personal prevention plan. A high heterogeneity in preferences was observed, related to both clinical and demographic characteristics: for example, a higher number of previous treatment episodes was related to a preference for a higher frequency of contact with a professional, while younger age was related to a stronger preference for high effectiveness. This study using a DCE provides insights into preferences for a relapse prevention programme for anxiety and depressive disorders that can be used to guide the development of such a programme.

Because the risk of relapse is high in anxiety disorders, it is important to bear in mind long-term prospects when making treatment decisions. This means that patients may need 'booster' treatment or continuous antidepressant medication to achieve long-term positive outcomes. Preparing a patient for a possible relapse in the end phase of a successful treatment, especially when there is a desire to discontinue the use of antidepressants, or timely intervention in case of an actual relapse episode is crucial to prevent recurrence of the anxiety disorder.