Efficacy of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy in Generalized Anxiety Disorders
Linden M.a,c · Zubraegel D.a · Baer T.a · Franke U.a · Schlattmann P.b
Results of a Controlled Clinical Trial (Berlin CBT-GAD Study)
aResearch Group Psychosomatic Rehabilitation, and bDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Biostatistical Division, Charité, University Hospital Benjamin Franklin, Berlin and cDepartment of Behavioural Medicine, BfA-Rehabilitation Centre Seehof, Teltow/Berlin, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Background: Generalized anxiety disorders (GAD) are amongst the most prevalent mental disorders. Recent studies have suggested that cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for GAD. A controlled clinical trial was done to evaluate the efficacy of CBT treatment in outpatients with pure GAD who were treated by a therapist working in routine care. Methods: Seventy-two outpatients, fulfilling GAD criteria according to DSM-IV, were included in the study. From this group, 36 patients (CBT-A) were randomly assigned to 25 sessions of CBT and the other 36 formed a contact control group (CCG). After the contact control period (CC period), these patients were also treated with CBT (CBT-B), allowing not only a parallel group comparison but also an A-B comparison. Therapists were licensed full-time psychologists who worked routinely in outpatient care and had a professional training in CBT. Treatment was done in accordance with a manual, and treatment conformity was controlled by several methods. Results: The reduction in the score on the Hamilton Anxiety Observer Rating Scale was 6.4% (1.5 points) in the CCG, 35.4% (9.5 points) in the CBT-A and 47.3% (10.3 points) in the CBT-B. In the self-rating Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, a reduction of 2.7% was seen in CCG, 14.6% in CBT-A, and 11.6% in CBT-B. According to the Clinical Global Impression Rating, 65.6% of patients were still at least moderately ill at the end of the CC period, while this rate was 33.4% at the end of CBT-A, or 15.7% at the end of CBT-B. All these differences between treatment and control group are statistically highly significant. The clinical improvement remained stable over a follow-up period of 8 months. Conclusions: CBT is an effective method of treatment for GAD. Differences between control and treatment group are comparable to or larger than those reported in studies on antidepressant drugs.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.