A Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Adjusting to Multiple Sclerosis (The saMS Trial): Does CBT Work and for Whom Does It Work?

Autor/inn/en	Moss-Morris, Rona; Dennison, Laura; Landau, Sabine; Yardley, Lucy; Silber, Eli; Chalder, Trudie
Titel	A Randomized Controlled Trial of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Adjusting to Multiple Sclerosis (The saMS Trial): Does CBT Work and for Whom Does It Work?
Quelle	In: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81 (2013) 2, S.251-262 (12 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-006X
DOI	10.1037/a0029132
Schlagwörter	Therapy; Cognitive Restructuring; Patients; Diseases; Behavior Modification; Clinical Diagnosis; Emotional Adjustment; Social Support Groups; Emotional Disturbances; Evaluators; Hierarchical Linear Modeling; Questionnaires; Health; Outcomes of Treatment + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Therapie; Patient; Disease; Krankheit; Behaviour modification; Verhaltensänderung; Emotionale Anpassung; Social support; Soziale Unterstützung; Gefühlsstörung; Fragebogen; Gesundheit
Abstract	Objective: The aims were (a) to test the effectiveness of a nurse-led cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program to assist adjustment in the early stages of multiple sclerosis (MS) and (b) to determine moderators of treatment including baseline distress, social support (SS), and treatment preference. Method: Ninety-four ambulatory people with MS within 10 years of diagnosis were randomized to receive 8 individual sessions of CBT (n = 48) or supportive listening (n = 46), most delivered on the telephone, in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. The primary outcomes were distress and functional impairment. Secondary outcomes included global improvement, acceptance of illness, and dysfunctional cognitions. Assessments were completed at home and were coordinated by a blind assessor. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat using multilevel models. Results: The CBT group was significantly less distressed at the end of treatment (estimated General Health Questionnaire group difference = 3.2 points, 95% CI 1.1 to 5.4 points) and at the 12-month follow-up (estimated group difference = 2.2 points, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.4 points). There were no differences between the groups on functional impairment. The CBT group also demonstrated significantly greater improvements on secondary outcomes at the end of treatment but not at the 12-month follow-up. CBT participants with poor SS and/or clinically defined levels of distress at baseline showed significantly greater gains on both primary outcomes. Treatment preference did not moderate treatment effects. Conclusion: CBT is more effective than supportive listening in reducing distress in people with MS. CBT appears most effective for patients with poor SS and high levels of distress. The loss of gains in the secondary outcomes by 12 months suggests further follow-up sessions may be warranted. (Contains 1 figure, 5 tables, and 1 footnote.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10