Quality of Research
Documents Reviewed
The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of
contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability
of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.
Study 1Craske, M. G., Stein, M. B., Sullivan, G., Sherbourne, C., Bystritsky, A., Rose, R. D., et al. Disorder-specific impact of Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management treatment for anxiety disorders in primary care. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(4), 378-388.
Roy-Byrne, P., Craske, M. G., Sullivan, G., Rose, R. D., Edlund, M. J., Lang, A. J., et al. Delivery of evidenced-based treatment for multiple anxiety disorders in primary care. A randomized controlled trial [Including data supplement: eTable 1. Adjusted means for anxiety outcomes]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(19)
Supplementary Materials Craske, M. G., Rose, R. D., Lang, A., Welch, S. S., Campbell-Sills, L., Sullivan, G., et al. Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in primary-care settings. Depression and Anxiety, 26(3), 235-242.
Outcomes
Outcome 1: General symptoms of anxiety |
Description of Measures
|
General symptoms of anxiety were assessed using the 12-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-12), a generic measure of two key components of all anxiety disorders (i.e., psychic and somatic anxiety). Using a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), participants rate how distressed they were by each symptom (e.g., "faintness or dizziness," "feeling tense or keyed up," "spells of terror or panic") over the past 7 days. Scores for each item are summed, and total scores range from 0 to 48; higher scores indicate more anxiety symptoms with greater severity.
In addition, participants' achievement of response to treatment (i.e., response rate) was calculated as the percentage of participants who had at least a 50% reduction in the BSI-12 total score from baseline to a follow-up assessment, and participants' achievement of remission (i.e., remission rate) was calculated as the percentage of participants who had a BSI-12 total score of less than 6 at a follow-up assessment.
|
Key Findings
|
A study was conducted in 17 primary care clinics with 18- to 75-year-old patients with anxiety disorders (with or without major depression). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the CALM Tools for Living Program or usual care (i.e., continued treatment by their physician with medication, counseling, or referral to a mental health specialist). The CALM Tools for Living Program was delivered over 10-12 weeks, and if necessary, participants received the program for another 10-12 weeks. After completing the program, participants received monthly phone calls to reinforce CBT skills and medication adherence for up to a year from the beginning of the study. Data were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline (follow-up assessments). Results of the initial BSI-12 assessment indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and usual care groups at baseline. Findings included the following:
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had lower BSI-12 total scores at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p = .05) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with effect sizes that were small (Cohen's d = 0.30 and 0.31 at the 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, respectively) and very small (Cohen's d = 0.18 at the 18-month follow-up assessment).
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had higher response rates at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments.
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had higher remission rates at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments.
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.6
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Outcome 2: Disorder-specific symptoms of anxiety |
Description of Measures
|
Disorder-specific symptoms of anxiety were assessed using three measures:
- Panic Disorder Severity Scale--Self Report (PDSS-SR). The PDSS-SR is a 7-item measure designed to assess panic disorder. Using a scale ranging from 0 to 4, with varying answers for each anchor, participants rate their experience regarding panic disorder over the past week. A sample item is, "During the past week, how much have you worried or felt anxious about when your next panic attack would occur, or about fears related to the attacks (for example, that they could mean you have physical or mental health problems or could cause you social embarrassment)?" Responses to this item range from 0 (not at all) to 4 (nearly constantly and to a disabling extent). Scores for each item are summed, and total scores range from 0 to 28; higher scores indicate more panic disorder symptoms with greater severity.
- Generalized Anxiety Disorder Severity Scale (GADSS). The GADSS is a 6-item measure of generalized anxiety disorder symptoms. Using a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), participants rate their experience regarding each item (e.g., "Over the past week, how often did you experience these symptoms? Did you have these symptoms every day?" and "On average, during how much of each day did you have one or more of these symptoms?"). Scores for each item are summed, and total scores range from 0 to 24; higher scores indicate more generalized anxiety disorder symptoms with greater severity.
- Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN). The SPIN is a 17-item measure of social phobia symptoms of social anxiety disorder. Using a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), participants rate their experience regarding each symptom described in an item (e.g., "I am afraid of people in authority," "I avoid talking to people I don't know"). Scores for each item are summed, and total scores range from 0 to 68; higher scores indicate more social phobia symptoms with greater severity.
In addition, participants' achievement of response to treatment (i.e., response rate) was calculated as the percentage of participants who had at least a 40% reduction in each measure's total score from baseline to a follow-up assessment, and participants' achievement of remission (i.e., remission rate) was calculated as the percentage of participants who had a PDSS-SR total score of less than or equal to 7, a GADSS total score of less than or equal to 6, or a SPIN total score of less than or equal to 18 at a follow-up assessment.
|
Key Findings
|
A study was conducted in 17 primary care clinics with 18- to 75-year-old patients with anxiety disorders (with or without major depression). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the CALM Tools for Living Program or usual care (i.e., continued treatment by their physician with medication, counseling, or referral to a mental health specialist). The CALM Tools for Living Program was delivered over 10-12 weeks, and if necessary, participants received the program for another 10-12 weeks. After completing the program, participants received monthly phone calls to reinforce CBT skills and medication adherence for up to a year from the beginning of the study. Data were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline (follow-up assessments). Results of the initial PDSS-SR, GADSS, and SPIN assessments indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups at baseline. Findings included the following:
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had lower PDSS-SR total scores at the 6-month (p = .036) and 12-month (p = .003) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with small effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.35 and 0.46 at the 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in PDSS-SR total scores between groups at the 18-month follow-up assessment; response rates also did not differ significantly between groups at any of the follow-up assessments. However, compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had a higher remission rate at the 12-month (p < .03) follow-up assessment; findings were not significant at the 6- and 18-month follow-up assessments.
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had lower GADSS total scores at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with effect sizes that were small (Cohen's d = 0.33 at the 6-month follow-up assessment) and medium (Cohen's d = 0.51 and 0.64 at the 12- and 18-month follow-up assessments, respectively). In addition, compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had higher response rates at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments and higher remission rates at the 6-month (p < .01), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments.
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had a lower SPIN total score at the 6-month follow-up assessment (p = .026). This result was associated with a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.53). In addition, compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had a higher response rate at the 6-month (p < .04) follow-up assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in SPIN total scores or in response rates between groups at the 12- and 18-month follow-up assessments; the remission rates also did not differ significantly between groups at any of the follow-up assessments.
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.7
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Outcome 3: Symptoms of depression |
Description of Measures
|
Symptoms of depression were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (PHQ-8), an 8-item measure of depression severity. Using a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day), participants rate their experience regarding each symptom (e.g., "little interest or pleasure in doing things," "feeling down, depressed, or hopeless," "feeling tired or having little energy") over the past 2 weeks. Scores for each item are summed, and total scores range from 0 to 24; higher scores indicate more symptoms of depression with greater severity.
|
Key Findings
|
A study was conducted in 17 primary care clinics with 18- to 75-year-old patients with anxiety disorders (with or without major depression). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the CALM Tools for Living Program or usual care (i.e., continued treatment by their physician with medication, counseling, or referral to a mental health specialist). The CALM Tools for Living Program was delivered over 10-12 weeks, and if necessary, participants received the program for another 10-12 weeks. After completing the program, participants received monthly phone calls to reinforce CBT skills and medication adherence for up to a year from the beginning of the study. Data were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline (follow-up assessments). Results of the initial PHQ-8 assessment indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and usual care groups at baseline. Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had lower PHQ-8 total scores at the 6-month (p = .002), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p = .006) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with small effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.25, 0.37, and 0.24 at the 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up assessments, respectively).
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.7
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Outcome 4: Functional status |
Description of Measures
|
Functional status was assessed using the following measures:
- 12-item Short Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2), a measure of physical and mental health. Using a scale ranging from 1 to 5, participants rate each item (e.g., "During the past 4 weeks, how much of the time have you accomplished less than you would like as a result of any emotional problems, such as feeling depressed or anxious?" and "During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work, including both work outside the home and housework?"). Scores for each item are summed to produce physical health and mental health composite scores, and higher scores indicate better functional status.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "Healthy Days Measure," a 1-item measure of physical and mental health: "During the past 30 days, for about how many days did poor physical or mental health keep you from doing your usual activities, such as self-care, work, or recreation?" Participants respond by providing the number of days.
- Sheehan Disability Survey (SDS), a 3-item measure of functional impairment. Using a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely), participants rate how disrupted their functioning has been across three different contexts: "The symptoms have disrupted your work/school work," "The symptoms have disrupted your social life/leisure activities," and "The symptoms have disrupted your family life/home responsibilities." Scores for each item are summed, and total scores range from 0 to 30; higher scores indicate a higher level of functional impairment.
|
Key Findings
|
A study was conducted in 17 primary care clinics with 18- to 75-year-old patients with anxiety disorders (with or without major depression). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the CALM Tools for Living Program or usual care (i.e., continued treatment by their physician with medication, counseling, or referral to a mental health specialist). The CALM Tools for Living Program was delivered over 10-12 weeks, and if necessary, participants received the program for another 10-12 weeks. After completing the program, participants received monthly phone calls to reinforce CBT skills and medication adherence for up to a year from the beginning of the study. Data were collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months after baseline (follow-up assessments). Results of the initial SF-12v2, Healthy Days Measure, and SDS assessments indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups at baseline. Findings included the following:
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had an increase in SF-12v2 mental health composite scores at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with small effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.34, 0.47, and 0.39 at the 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up assessments, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the SF-12v2 physical health composite scores between groups at any of the follow-up assessments.
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention reported fewer days of poor health that kept them from usual activities (Healthy Days Measure) at the 6-month (p = .005), 12-month (p = .05), and 18-month (p = .02) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with effect sizes that were small (Cohen's d = 0.24 and 0.21 at the 6- and 12-month follow-up assessments, respectively) and very small (Cohen's d = 0.19 at the 18-month follow-up assessment).
- Compared with participants who received usual care, those who received the intervention had lower SDS total scores at the 6-month (p < .001), 12-month (p < .001), and 18-month (p < .001) follow-up assessments. These results were associated with small effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.32, 0.44, and 0.35 at the 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up assessments, respectively).
|
Studies Measuring Outcome
|
Study 1
|
Study Designs
|
Experimental
|
Quality of Research Rating
|
3.7
(0.0-4.0 scale)
|
Study Populations
The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of
Research.
Study
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
Study 1
|
18-25 (Young adult) 26-55 (Adult) 55+ (Older adult)
|
71.1% Female 28.9% Male
|
56.6% White 19.5% Hispanic or Latino 12.4% Race/ethnicity unspecified 11.6% Black or African American
|
Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)
External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's
reported results using six criteria:
For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.
Outcome
|
Reliability
of Measures
|
Validity
of Measures
|
Fidelity
|
Missing
Data/Attrition
|
Confounding
Variables
|
Data
Analysis
|
Overall
Rating
|
1: General symptoms of anxiety
|
3.8
|
3.8
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
3.6
|
2: Disorder-specific symptoms of anxiety
|
3.8
|
3.9
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
3: Symptoms of depression
|
3.8
|
4.0
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
4: Functional status
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
3.5
|
3.8
|
3.0
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
Study Strengths The measures have acceptable, documented levels of reliability and validity. Treatment fidelity was maximized through multiple efforts, including training of the ACSs in CBT and medication management, ongoing supervision of the ACSs, real-time Web-based outcomes monitoring that optimized treatment decisions, and a computer-assisted program to optimize delivery of CBT by nonexpert care managers (i.e., ACSs) who also assisted primary care providers in promoting patients' adherence to medications, optimizing their use of medications, and providing patients with behavioral counseling. Attrition was relatively low, with 80% of participants completing the 18-month follow-up assessment, and researchers provided information on the number of participants who dropped out at each step of the study, as well as reasons for attrition. The study used a randomized design. Data analyses were appropriate and used an intent-to-treat design.
Study Weaknesses As noted by the researchers, the intervention is made up of a blended package of treatment components; thus, it is not possible to disentangle which specific treatment component or combination of components accounted for the results.
|
|