Guided self-help for anxiety - a patient preference trial

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Comparing cognitive-behavioural and cognitive-analytic guided self-help for anxiety; a patient preference clinical trial

  • IRAS ID

    240751

  • Contact name

    Emma Beattie-Edwards

  • Contact email

    ebeattieedwards1@sheffield.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

  • Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

    18/EM/0141, Allocated ref number

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    2 years, months, days

  • Research summary

    Supporting patients in exerting choice over their treatment is a central aspect of modern healthcare. In Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services, then patients treated at step 2 are only and always offered cognitive-behaviourally informed guided self-help (CBT-GSH), when they are deemed suitable for treatment at step 2 of IAPT services. Step 2 interventions are always consist of guided self-help (GSH) delivered by Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs). Recently, a new type of GSH has been developed and found to be feasible and effective in IAPT services – this is called cognitive-analytic guided self-help (CAT-GSH). This research aims to test the efficacy of CAT-GSH by comparing outcomes over time achieved in both types of GSH and interviewing participants about their experience of the GSH. The methodology to support patient choice is a patient preference trial. In this method, then patients that meet inclusion criteria for the trial are offered and choose between either CAT-GSH and CBT-GSH. Those patients that are unconcerned with the type of treatment are randomised to either CAT-GSH or CBT-GSH. The primary outcome measure is the Beck Anxiety Inventory. No changes to the standard clinical practice of the PWPs will occur during the trial, the trial will be situated in a standard IAPT service and be a therefore conducted in a routine practice setting.

  • REC name

    East Midlands - Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    18/EM/0141

  • Date of REC Opinion

    24 May 2018

  • REC opinion

    Unfavourable Opinion