A randomized controlled trial to test the whether remote delivery of cognitive based therapy (CBT) is clinically and cost effective when compared to treatment as usual in adolescents and young adults with depression who self-harm.
Self harm is one of the five leading causes of admission to acute hospital with rates increasing by nearly 50% from 2003-2009 (South West Public Health Observatory, 2012). Re-admission within 30 days is frequent. People who repeatedly self harm are at high risk for suicide and and as a result suicide, self-harm and crisis are priorities for CCGs and HWBs in the East Midlands. The NICE Clinical Guideline 133 on longer-term treatment of self-harm recommends between 3 to 12 sessions of psychological treatment involving problem solving and alternative coping. Presently however, the biggest at risk group for self-harm and suicide is not offered any psychological treatment. Studies have shown that mobile phones are a highly acceptable method of engaging adolescents with depression in psychological treatments such as CBT (Whittaker et al 2012). Furthermore a systematic review has show that treatment delivery via remote technology is just as effective as face-to-face in people with anxiety or depression (Bee et al, 2008). The study therefore has the following aims and objectives: 1. To optimise and determine the acceptability and feasibility of engaging and retaining patients with depression who repeatedly self-harm in a remotely delivered (through video calling/telephone) CBT intervention over 10 sessions. 2. To outline the barriers and drivers to delivering both the study and the remotely delivered PS CBT intervention and how barriers to the interventions are addressed through a network of practice or other means. 3. If the recruitment and retention into the study and the remotely delivered PS therapy are feasible and acceptable, then we will determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the intervention versus treatment as usual. 4. If the intervention (pilot study) proves to be clinically effective and cost effective then the barriers and drivers to implementation in all counties in the East Midlands will be explored using a network of practice linking with NHS organisations, strategic clinical networks, and the AHSN (see qualitative analysis of barriers and drivers to the implementation of the intervention below). The main hypothesis of this study is: Adolescents and young adults who receive problem solving cognitive behaviour therapy (plus treatment as usual) will report greater reduction in their depressive symptoms (as measured using Beck depression inventory 2) from baseline to 6 months in comparison to those receiving treatment as usual. Secondary objectives will be to observe a change over 12 months on measures of depression, hopelessness and suicidality. Study configuration: This study will compare two groups: participants will be randomly assigned to the TAU group (control group) or the remotely delivered PS CBT (and TAU) group (intervention group).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
22
Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Derby, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Derbyshire Hoispitals NHS Foundation Trust
Derby, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Chesterfield, Deryshire, United Kingdom
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS foundation Trust.
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom
Beck Depression Inventory (V2)
The difference of change in self-rated depression as measured by Beck depression inventory (version 2) from baseline to 6 months, between the control and intervention group.
Time frame: Baseline to 6 months
Beck Depression Inventory (V2)
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Time to Self-Harm
Time to self-harm, assessed through a self-report measure and verified through medical records where possible
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Patient Health Questionnaire 9
Depressive symptoms on the PHQ-9 (Kroenke et al, 2001)
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Beck hopelessness scale
Hopelessness measured on the Beck hopelessness scale (Beck, 1988)
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale
Suicidality measured on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS; Posner et al, 2011).
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Social functioning
Social functioning measured using the work and social adjustment scale (WSAS; Mundt et al, 2002).
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Quality of life
Quality of life measured using EQ-5D (EuroQol Group, 1990).
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Cost Effectiveness
A modified version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI; Beecham \& Knapp, 2001): to measure costs, service utilisation, income and related matters to analyse cost effectiveness.
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months
Qualitative Interviews
Explore reasons why individuals may or may not engage with the study and the PS CBT intervention
Time frame: Baseline to 12 months