Testing Target Engagement and Effectiveness of Web-based Interpretation Training For Anxiety
试验速览
- 阶段
- 2 期
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 807
- 试验地点
- 1
- 主要终点
- Change in Recognition Ratings (Positive Interpretation Bias)
研究概览
简要总结
The study aims to develop a web-based Cognitive Bias Modification infrastructure to train interpretations, and evaluate the usability, acceptability, and feasibility of the program to reduce anxiety symptoms.
详细描述
Approximately half of the U.S. population experiences serious mental health problems during their lifetime, including 29% with anxiety pathology severe enough to qualify for an anxiety disorder diagnosis [1]. Critically, more than two thirds of individuals struggling with a mental illness do not receive treatment [1]. With this level of mental illness burden, it is clear that treating people one-on-one in an office setting will never meet the existing needs [2]. There are many barriers to treatment, including costs [3], difficulties accessing evidence-based treatments in many regions [4], and associated stigma [5]. Thus, there is a pressing need to consider alternative, larger scale approaches to delivering mental health services. Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) interventions hold considerable promise as a way to meet these needs, especially for anxiety difficulties [6]. These computer-based programs are designed to alter biased ways of thinking, such as a tendency toward negative interpretations, which cause and maintain anxiety [6]. Because these programs do not require therapist contact and can be administered on any computer with an Internet connection, CBM holds promise as a cost-effective method that can be disseminated widely. However, while CBM for interpretation bias (CBM-I) has established efficacy when administered in-person in the laboratory [7], it now needs to be tested with broader populations using a web-based infrastructure to examine: a) whether the program will be effective in a web environment, b) whether the program continues to engage the targeted mechanism (i.e., interpretation bias), c) the feasibility of this delivery method, and d) the modifications needed to adapt the program for the web (in particular, to prime anxiety-linked negative thinking in an online environment, we test the effect of adding a guided anxious imagery exercise to prime feared outcomes prior to each training session).
Together, the current proposal will develop an infrastructure to pilot test the effectiveness of web-based CBM-I for anxiety symptoms. CBM-I training will target moderate to severe anxiety symptoms, a widespread problem area with considerable occupational and social impairment [8]. Participants will be visitors to Project Implicit Mental Health (PIMH), an existing website directed by the Principal Investigator that allows visitors to assess their cognitive biases tied to mental health concerns. Consistent with the RFA's priorities, this approach encourages efficiencies by capitalizing on the existing PIMH site and its heavy traffic. Further, the site's large number of visitors and use of automated assessments will make it efficient to assess baseline demographic characteristics and interpretation bias as moderators of CBM-I effects that can be tested in future trials.
Aim 1: Develop and evaluate usability and acceptability of web-based CBM-I for anxiety symptoms.
Aim 1 will build the web-based interpretation bias training program using the PIMH infrastructure. We will pilot the program on a small test group of moderate to highly anxious participants (N=15) who will complete questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to provide feedback on the programs' usability and acceptability. Further, an advisory board (N=8) of anxiety researchers, clinicians, and experts in CBM and web-based research will provide feedback on the program and study protocol. Using a "deployment-focused" approach, this feedback from experts and end-users will be used to iteratively modify the program for the trial planned for Aims 2 and 3. Thus, even at this initial pilot stage, we will measure the targeted outcome (anxiety symptoms) and mechanism (interpretation bias) to determine whether modifications to enhance target engagement are needed. Note, within Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), this outcome falls under the Potential Threat/Anxiety construct within the Negative Valence System, and the targeted mechanism (interpretation bias) falls under the Response Selection, Inhibition construct within the Cognitive (effortful) control system. Both the outcome and mechanism will be objectively measured using multiple units of analysis (e.g., behavior and self-report). Further, mechanisms underlying the guided anxious imagery prime's effects will be measured by assessing subjective distress, imagery vividness, and activation of feared outcomes following the manipulation. This prime was selected in part because of its potential to be disseminated widely in future trials, given it does not require human contact.
Aim 2: Test target engagement, feasibility and effectiveness of web-based CBM-I.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- Double (Participant, Investigator)
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •The target population will be adults age 18 and over who score in the moderate to extremely severe anxiety range (i.e., 10 or higher) on the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales - Short Form: Anxiety Subscale and have regular access to the Internet.
排除标准
- •None listed.
研究组 & 干预措施
Positive Training+Anxious Imagery Prime
Positive Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation training paired with a preceding Anxious Imagery Prime
干预措施: Positive Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (Behavioral)
Positive Training+Anxious Imagery Prime
Positive Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation training paired with a preceding Anxious Imagery Prime
干预措施: Anxious Imagery Prime (Behavioral)
Positive Training+Neutral Imagery Prime
Positive Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation training paired with a preceding Neutral Imagery Prime
干预措施: Positive Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (Behavioral)
Positive Training+Neutral Imagery Prime
Positive Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation training paired with a preceding Neutral Imagery Prime
干预措施: Neutral Imagery Prime (Behavioral)
50/50 Training+Anxious Imagery Prime
50/50 Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (half positive & half negative scenarios) paired with a preceding Anxious Imagery Prime
干预措施: 50/50 Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (Behavioral)
50/50 Training+Anxious Imagery Prime
50/50 Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (half positive & half negative scenarios) paired with a preceding Anxious Imagery Prime
干预措施: Anxious Imagery Prime (Behavioral)
50/50 Training+Neutral Imagery Prime
50/50 Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (half positive & half negative scenarios) paired with a preceding Neutral Imagery Prime
干预措施: 50/50 Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (Behavioral)
50/50 Training+Neutral Imagery Prime
50/50 Cognitive Bias Modification - Interpretation (half positive & half negative scenarios) paired with a preceding Neutral Imagery Prime
干预措施: Neutral Imagery Prime (Behavioral)
No Scenario+Anxious Imagery Prime
No scenarios paired with a preceding Anxious Imagery Prime
干预措施: Anxious Imagery Prime (Behavioral)
No Scenario+Neutral Imagery Prime
No scenarios paired with a preceding Neutral Imagery Prime
干预措施: Neutral Imagery Prime (Behavioral)
结局指标
主要结局
Change in Recognition Ratings (Positive Interpretation Bias)
时间窗: Baseline, and after sessions 3 (~2 weeks following baseline), 6 (~10 days after session 3), and 8 (~7 days after session 6) & at 2-month follow-up. Measure will be completed immediately following that day's training session.
To measure interpretation bias, participants will read ambiguous scenarios with titles, after which they will see the titles of each scenario, followed by 2 disambiguated interpretations of the scenario: 1 positive and 1 negative. Participants will rate each disambiguated interpretation based on how similar in meaning it is to the original scenario on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 to 4. The mean of the positive, threat-related ratings index positive interpretation bias. Higher scores represent a more positive interpretation bias.
Change in Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale
时间窗: Baseline, and after sessions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 (sessions will be spaced ~3-4 days apart) & at 2-month follow-up. Measure will be completed immediately following that day's training session. Session 2 is expected to occur within 3-8 days of the baseline.
The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS; Norman, Hami Cissell, Means-Christensen, \& Stein, 2006) assesses anxiety frequency, severity, and associated avoidance, work and social interference. This 5-item measure of anxiety symptom severity and impairment has good psychometric properties, shows treatment sensitivity, and is valid in community and clinical samples. All items are rated on a scale of 0 (lowest impairment/severity) to 4 (highest impairment/severity). Total scores on the OASIS are calculated by summing the scores of each of the 5 questions. The total score on the OASIS ranges from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. A cut-score of 8 or higher on the OASIS is considered to indicate probable anxiety disorder.
Change in Recognition Ratings (Negative Interpretation Bias)
时间窗: Baseline, and after sessions 3 (~2 weeks following baseline), 6 (~10 days after session 3), and 8 (~7 days after session 6) & at 2-month follow-up. Measure will be completed immediately following that day's training session.
To measure interpretation bias, participants will read ambiguous scenarios with titles, after which they will see the titles of each scenario, followed by 2 disambiguated interpretations of the scenario: 1 positive and 1 negative. Participants will rate each disambiguated interpretation based on how similar in meaning it is to the original scenario on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 to 4. The mean of the negative, threat-related ratings index negative interpretation bias. Higher scores represent a more negative interpretation bias.
Change in Brief Bodily Sensations Interpretations Questionnaire
时间窗: Baseline, and after sessions 3 (~2 weeks following baseline), 6 (~10 days after session 3), and 8 (~7 days after session 6) & at 2-month follow-up. Measure will be completed immediately following that day's training session.
The Brief Bodily Sensation Interpretation Questionnaire (BBSIQ; Clark et al., 1997) was administered as a more independent, additional measure of interpretation bias. In the BBSIQ, participants are presented with fourteen ambiguous events related to physical (e.g., feeling lightheaded) or external (e.g., smelling smoke, social situations) concerns, along with three possible explanations for each ambiguous event (one negative, and two neutral or positive explanations). Participants rated the extent to which they believed each explanation for why the ambiguous event occurred on a Likert scale from 0 ("not at all likely") to 4 ("extremely likely"). Typically, the BBSIQ is administered on an eight-point Likert scale, but a 0-4 scale was used to align with other rating scales in the study. Negative interpretation bias score was computed by averaging the likelihood ratings for all negative explanations (following Steinman \& Teachman, 2010, 2015).
次要结局
- Multi-Session User Experience Questionnaire(At 2-month follow-up)
- Impact of Anxious Imagery Prime (Change Over Time is Exploratory But Should Show Anxious/Neutral Prime Differences; e.g., in Subjective Distress)(After sessions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 (sessions will be spaced ~3-4 days apart). Measure will be completed following that day's imagery prime (which immediately precedes the training session).)
- Change in Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales-Short Form: Anxiety Subscale(Baseline, after session 8 (~4 weeks after baseline) & at 2-month follow-up.)
- Change in Quality of Life Scale(Baseline, and after sessions 3 (~2 weeks following baseline), 6 (~10 days after session 3), and 8 (~7 days after session 6) & at 2-month follow-up. Measure will be completed immediately following that day's training session.)
研究者
Bethany A. Teachman, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
University of Virginia
