Abstract
Background: Psychological distress is prevalent in haemodialysis (HD) patients yet access to psychotherapy remains limited. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of online cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) tailored for HD patients, with or without therapist support, for managing psychological distress.
Methods: This feasibility randomised controlled trial recruited patients from a UK HD centre. Following psychological distress screens, patients with mild-moderate psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9; score: 5–19 and/or Generalised Anxiety Disorder; GAD-7 score: 5–14) who met remaining inclusion criteria were approached for consent. Consenters were individually randomised (1:1) to online-CBT or online-CBT plus three therapist support calls. Outcomes included recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. Exploratory change analyses were performed for: psychological distress, quality of life (QoL), illness perceptions, and costs. The statistician was blinded to allocation.
Results: 182 (44%) out of 410 patients approached completed psychological distress screens. 26% found screening unacceptable; a further 30% found it unfeasible. Psychological distress was detected in 101 (55%) patients, 60 of these met remaining inclusion criteria. The primary reason for ineligibility was poor computer literacy (N = 17, 53%). Twenty-five patients were randomised to the supported (N = 18) or unsupported arm (N = 7); 92% were retained at follow-up. No differences in psychological distress or cost-effectiveness were observed. No trial adverse events occurred.
Conclusion: Online CBT appears feasible but only for computer literate patients who identify with the label psychological distress. A definitive trial using the current methods for psychological distress screening and online care delivery is unfeasible.
Methods: This feasibility randomised controlled trial recruited patients from a UK HD centre. Following psychological distress screens, patients with mild-moderate psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9; score: 5–19 and/or Generalised Anxiety Disorder; GAD-7 score: 5–14) who met remaining inclusion criteria were approached for consent. Consenters were individually randomised (1:1) to online-CBT or online-CBT plus three therapist support calls. Outcomes included recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. Exploratory change analyses were performed for: psychological distress, quality of life (QoL), illness perceptions, and costs. The statistician was blinded to allocation.
Results: 182 (44%) out of 410 patients approached completed psychological distress screens. 26% found screening unacceptable; a further 30% found it unfeasible. Psychological distress was detected in 101 (55%) patients, 60 of these met remaining inclusion criteria. The primary reason for ineligibility was poor computer literacy (N = 17, 53%). Twenty-five patients were randomised to the supported (N = 18) or unsupported arm (N = 7); 92% were retained at follow-up. No differences in psychological distress or cost-effectiveness were observed. No trial adverse events occurred.
Conclusion: Online CBT appears feasible but only for computer literate patients who identify with the label psychological distress. A definitive trial using the current methods for psychological distress screening and online care delivery is unfeasible.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 61-70 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Journal of Psychosomatic Research |
| Volume | 102 |
| Early online date | 28 Sept 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2017 |