A 4-Day Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Program for CFS/ME. An Open Study, With 1-Year Follow-Up

Background: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalopathy (CFS/ME) is an incapacitating illness in which single treatment interventions seem to have variable effects. Based on an earlier study we have conducted a new study with a concentrated intervention program. The aims of this study were to: (1) explore the clinical course for patients with CFS/ME who participated in a treatment program delivered during four consecutive days, and (2) evaluate their satisfaction with this program.Methods: 305 patients diagnosed with CFS/ME (Oxford criteria), recruited from a clinical population referred to a specialist outpatient clinic, participated in an open uncontrolled study of the clinical course through 1 year. The study group participated in a 4-day group intervention program, comprised by education, cognitive group therapy sessions, mindfulness sessions, physical activity and writing sessions, within a context of cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment model.Assessments were done by self-reports prior to the first consultation, 1 week before and 1 week after the intervention program, and at 3 months and 1 year after the intervention. SPSS 23 and R 3.3 were used for statistical analyses. The associations between case definitions and the outcome measures (Chalder Fatigue Scale (FS), Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical functioning scale) were assessed by a linear mixed effects model (LME).Results: Results showed statistically significant clinical changes for 80% of the patients after the intervention, changes being sustained through 1 year after the program. For both Fatigue Scale (FS) and the SF-36 there were statistically significant effects of time from baseline to all time points with a statistically significant drop in scores, applying the linear mixed effects model.A subgroup fulfilling the inclusion criteria from the PACE study (Chalder Fatigue Scale >6/11, SF-36 Physical functioning <65/100) showed clinically significant improvement through 1 year, changes in outcome measures were statistically significant (p < 0.001). None of the patients included in the program dropped out, and a great majority of patients expressed high satisfaction with the content, focus and amount of treatment. Conclusion: Clinical changes observed from pre-treatment to 1 year follow-up could represent effects of the 4-day concentrated intervention program, and should be further explored in a controlled study

Personality traits and hardiness as risk- and protective factors for mental distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Norwegian two-wave study

Background Several risk factors for anxious-depressive symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic have been established. However, few studies have examined the relationship between personality traits, hardiness, and such symptomatology during the pandemic. These constructs might serve as risk- and/or protective factors for such mental distress through the pandemic. Methods A sample of 5783 Norwegians responded to a survey at two time points within the first year of the pandemic. The first data collection was in April 2020 (T1) and the second in December 2020 (T2). Measures included the Ten-Item Personality-Inventory, the Revised Norwegian Dispositional Resilience Scale, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale. Analyses were performed using Pearson’s correlations, multiple linear regression, and a moderation analysis. Results Anxious-depressive symptomatology in early phases (T1) of the pandemic was the strongest predictor for the presence of such symptomatology 9 months after the outbreak (T2). Personality and hardiness correlated significantly with mental distress at T1 and T2. Personality traits explained 5% variance in symptoms when controlling for age, gender, solitary living, negative economic impact, and mental distress at baseline. Higher neuroticism predicted higher mental distress, whereas higher conscientiousness and extraversion predicted less mental distress. Hardiness did not explain variance in outcome beyond personality traits. Hardiness did not significantly moderate the relationship between neuroticism and mental distress. Conclusion Individuals with high levels of neuroticism had greater difficulties adapting to the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and were more prone to mental distress. Contrastingly, higher conscientiousness and extraversion may have served as protective factors for mental distress during the pandemic. The current findings might aid identification of vulnerable individuals and groups. Consequently, preventive interventions could be offered to those who need it the most.publishedVersio

Treatment Adherence as Predictor of Outcome in Concentrated Exposure Treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Background: The treatment of choice for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is exposure and response prevention (EX/RP). Previous studies have demonstrated that treatment adherence predicts treatment outcome for patients with OCD, but there is little knowledge on its role in concentrated exposure treatment for OCD. Method: In the present study, 42 patients received EX/RP treatment using the Bergen 4-day format. Adherence was measured with the Exposure and Response Prevention Adherence Scale (PEAS, rated both by patients and therapists) after the second and third day. Treatment outcome (symptoms of OCD, depression, anxiety, work- and social functioning, and well-being) was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Results: At follow-up, 71.4% were in remission. High adherence was reported (mean score of 6 on a 1–7 scale). The combination of patient- and therapist rated adherence was significantly associated with treatment outcome whilst controlling for age, sex, and pre-treatment scores. Patients with higher degree of adherence reported less symptoms, higher functioning, and more well-being at follow-up. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicated that adherence in concentrated exposure treatment is significantly associated with a wide range of treatment outcomes for OCD.publishedVersio

Concentrated transdiagnostic and cross-disciplinary group treatment for patients with depression and with anxiety: a pilot study

Background: A number of treatment approaches have shown efficacy for depression and/or anxiety, yet there is a paucity of research on potentially cost-effective concentrated approaches. Based on our previous experience with concentrated treatment in disorders such as Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder and chronic fatigue, we proposed that this novel approach could be useful for other conditions, including depression and/or anxiety. As a pre-requisite for a future randomized controlled trial, the aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability, satisfaction and effectiveness of a transdiagnostic, interdisciplinary group treatment delivered during 5 consecutive days to groups of 6–10 patients with depression and/or anxiety. Methods: This was a non-randomized clinical intervention pilot study in line with a published protocol. Forty-two consecutively referred patients, aged 19–47 (mean age 31.7, SD = 8.12) were included and completed treatment. All had a severity of their problems that entitled them to care in the specialist public mental health care. Self-reported age when the symptoms became a problem was 20.9 years. Mean number of prior treatment courses was 2.77 (SD = 2.19; range 0–8). Acceptability was defined as the proportion of eligible patients who accepted and completed the treatment. Satisfaction was evaluated by Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8. Secondary objectives were to assess the treatment effectiveness by questionnaires at pre-treatment, seven days post-treatment and three months follow-up. Results: The treatment was highly acceptable (91.3% accepted, all completed), and patients were highly satisfied with the treatment, including the amount. Functional impairment, as measured by Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) improved significantly (p < .0005) from “severe” (mean 25.4 SD = 6.59) to “less severe” (mean 13.37, SD = 9.43) at 3 months follow-up. Using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the effect sizes at 3 months follow-up were 1.21 for anxiety and 1.3 for depression. More than 80% reported reduced utilization of mental health care, and 67% had not used, or had used the family doctor less, for anxiety or depression. 52% had not used, or had reduced, medication for their disorder. Conclusions: The concentrated, interdisciplinary treatment approach yielded promising results. Long-term follow up is warranted.publishedVersio

Does Concentrated Exposure Treatment for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Improve Insomnia Symptoms? Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

Insomnia is a substantial problem in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). There is, however, a lack of studies investigating changes in concurrent symptoms of insomnia in OCD after concentrated treatment. A recent randomized controlled trial randomized participants to the Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT, n = 16), or 12 weeks of unguided self-help (SH, n = 16), or waitlist (WL, n = 16). Patients from the SH- and WL-group who wanted further treatment after the 12 weeks were then offered the B4DT (total of 42 patients treated with the B4DT). There were no significant differences in symptoms of insomnia between the conditions at post-treatment, but a significant moderate improvement at 3-month follow-up for patients who received the B4DT. Insomnia was not associated with OCD-treatment outcome, and change in symptoms of insomnia was mainly related to changes in depressive symptoms. The main conclusion is that concentrated exposure treatment is effective irrespective of comorbid insomnia, and that insomnia problems are moderately reduced following treatment.publishedVersio

A novel concentrated, interdisciplinary group rehabilitation program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Protocol for a nonrandomized clinical intervention study

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation has been demonstrated to be a highly effective treatment for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, its availability is scarce worldwide, and new and innovative rehabilitation models are highly warranted. Recently, the group behind the present study published a protocol describing a novel concentrated, interdisciplinary group rehabilitation program for patients with chronic illnesses. The current paper describes an extension of this protocol to patients with COPD. Objective: The objective of this study is to explore the acceptability of concentrated, interdisciplinary group pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD. The intervention is expected to improve functional status and be highly acceptable to patients. Methods: This study will include 50 patients aged over 40 years who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for COPD: a forced expiratory volume at the first second (FEV1) <80% of expected and a FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio below the lower limit of normal according to the Global Lung Function Initiative. An interdisciplinary team consisting of physicians, physiotherapists, psychologists, pharmacists, clinical nutritionists, and nurses will deliver the treatment to groups of 6 to 10 patients over 3 to 4 consecutive days with a 12-month follow-up. The intervention is divided into three distinct phases: (1) pretreatment preparation for change, (2) concentrated rehabilitation, where the patient is coached to focus on making health-promoting microchoices, and (3) integration of the changes into everyday living, aided by digital follow-up and 2 on-site clinical examinations. Statistical significance will be set at α=.05. Results: The recruitment period will last from April 2022 until June 2023. Conclusions: If successful, this highly novel rehabilitation format might change the way we deliver care for patients with COPD, leading to substantial societal and socioeconomic gains. The study will expand knowledge on the concentrated treatment format as a rehabilitation model for people with COPD.publishedVersio

Implementation of the Bergen 4-day treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder in Iceland

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the first implementation outside of Norway of the Bergen 4-day treatment for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), an innovative and effective treatment format with high acceptance and basically no drop-out. Method: Nineteen patients with OCD underwent the treatment at the Icelandic Anxiety Clinic (Kvíðameðferðarstöðin). Of these, 17 of the patients were classified pretreatment with severe to extreme symptoms and 2 were classified with moderate symptoms. 63% of the patients had previously received treatment for OCD (ERP or CBT). Results: Mean pretreatment score on Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) was 28.79 (SD = 4.42). One week post-treatment mean Y-BOCS score was 9.95 (SD = 3.67). 94.7% of the patients had responded to treatment and 73.7 were in remission according to the international consensus criteria. At 3-month follow-up, the Y-BOCS score was 11.09 (SD = 5.89) where 78.9% of the patients had responded to treatment and 63.2% were in remission. Conclusions: All patients expressed high satisfaction with the treatment format, and none of the patients would have preferred longer term treatment. The therapists also expressed satisfaction with the treatment format. The Bergen 4-day treatment for OCD is a very promising treatment for OCD, and can be successfully implemented outside Norway.publishedVersio

Cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in routine clinical care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has strong research support for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, less is known about how CBT performs when delivered in routine clinical care. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of CBT for OCD in adults treated in routine clinical care. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase OVID, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies published until July 2021. The effectiveness of CBT, methodological quality, and moderators of treatment outcome were examined, and benchmarked by meta-analytically comparing with efficacy studies for OCD. Twenty-nine studies (8 randomized controlled trials) were included, comprising 1669 participants. Very large within-group effect sizes (ES) were obtained for OCD-severity at post-treatment (2.12), and follow-up (2.30), on average 15 months post-treatment. Remission rates were 59.2% post-treatment and 57.0% at follow-up. Attrition rate was 15.2%. Risk of bias was considerable in the majority of studies. The benchmarking analysis showed that effectiveness studies had almost exactly the same ES as efficacy studies at post-treatment and somewhat higher at follow-up. Furthermore, effectiveness studies had significantly higher remission rates than efficacy studies, both at post- and follow-up assessment. CBT for OCD is an effective treatment when delivered in routine clinical care, with ES comparable to those found in efficacy studies. However, the evidence needs to be interpreted with caution because of the risk of bias in a high proportion of studies.publishedVersio

Changes in mental health symptoms from April (COVID-19 outbreak) to December 2020 in Norway: A two-wave study

The main objective of the study was to investigate changes in mental health symptoms from the start of the pandemic in Norway (April) to December 2020. A total of 6017 participants completed an assessment of the survey at both time points. Main Outcome Measures: Symptoms of anxiety and depression were measured at both time points. Demographic variables and potential risk factors were assessed. There were significant changes (slight increase) in anxiety and depression, but effect sizes were small. Increases in symptoms in anxiety and depression occurred more in the general population than for people with pre-existing mental health problems. Baseline level of symptoms was the most important risk factor. Other significant risk factors included female sex, students, pre-existing mental health problems, increased tobacco use, lost job, and lacking government trust. The longitudinal results replicated findings from the first phase of the pandemic, suggesting that the number of risk factors experienced is associated with symptom severity. The results suggest that mental health symptoms have been quite stable from April to December but with a slight increase among people presenting with subclinical symptoms in April.publishedVersio

The Bergen 4-day treatment for panic disorder: adapting to COVID-19 restrictions with a hybrid approach of face-to-face and videoconference modalities

Background The Bergen 4-day treatment (B4DT) is a concentrated exposure-based therapy that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders. The current study sought to examine the effectiveness of B4DT for panic disorder (PD), when delivered with a combination of face-to-face sessions and videoconferencing. Methods Treatment was delivered to 50 patients from April 2020 to May 2021. Because of regulations during the pandemic, a significant portion of the treatment was conducted via videoconference. The primary outcome measure was the clinician-rated Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS), and secondary measures included patient-rated symptoms of panic disorder, agoraphobia, generalized anxiety, depression, and treatment satisfaction. Changes in symptom levels over time were estimated using multilevel models. Results Patients showed a significant reduction in clinician-rated symptoms of panic disorder (Measured by PDSS) from before treatment to post treatment (d = 2.18) and 3-month follow-up (d = 2.01). At three months follow-up 62% of patients were classified as in remission, while 70% reported a clinically significant response. We also found a reduction in symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety, and the patients reported high satisfaction with the treatment. Conclusion The current study suggests that B4DT delivered in a combination of videoconference and face-to-face meetings may be a useful treatment approach. As the study is uncontrolled, future studies should also include more strictly designed investigations.publishedVersio