Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Comorbidity (2) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- S. Karger AG (2)
Background: Controversy surrounds the questions whether co-occurring depression has negative effects on cognitivebehavioral therapy (CBT) outcomes in patients with panic disorder (PD) and agoraphobia (AG) and whether treatment for PD and AG (PD/AG) also reduces depressive symptomatology. Methods: Post-hoc analyses of randomized clinical trial data of 369 outpatients with primary PD/AG (DSM-IV-TR criteria) treated with a 12-session manualized CBT (n = 301) and a waitlist control group (n = 68). Patients with comorbid depression (DSM-IV-TR major depression, dysthymia, or both: 43.2% CBT, 42.7% controls) were compared to patients without depression regarding anxiety and depression outcomes (Clinical Global Impression Scale [CGI], Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A], number of panic attacks, Mobility Inventory [MI], Panic and Agoraphobia Scale, Beck Depression Inventory) at post-treatment and follow-up (categorical). Further, the role of severity of depressive symptoms on anxiety/depression outcome measures was examined (dimensional). Results: Comorbid depression did not have a significant overall effect on anxiety outcomes at post-treatment and follow-up, except for slightly diminished post-treatment effect sizes for clinician-rated CGI (p = 0.03) and HAM-A (p = 0.008) when adjusting for baseline anxiety severity. In the dimensional model, higher baseline depression scores were associated with lower effect sizes at post-treatment (except for MI), but not at follow-up (except for HAM-A). Depressive symptoms improved irrespective of the presence of depression. Conclusions: Exposure-based CBT for primary PD/AG effectively reduces anxiety and depressive symptoms, irrespective of comorbid depression or depressive symptomatology.
Background/Aims: Only a small percentage of pathological gamblers utilizes professional treatment for gambling problems. Little is known about which social and gambling-related factors are associated with treatment utilization. The aim of this study was to look for factors associated with treatment utilization for pathological gambling. Methods: The study followed a sampling design with 3 different recruitment channels, namely (1) a general population-based telephone sample, (2) a gambling location sample and (3) a project telephone hotline. Pathological gambling was diagnosed in a telephone interview. Participants with pathological gambling (n = 395) received an in-depth clinical interview concerning treatment utilization, comorbid psychiatric disorders and social characteristics. Results: Variables associated with treatment were higher age [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.08], an increased number of DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70), more adverse consequences from gambling (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.16) and more social pressure from significant others (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.27). Affective disorders were associated with treatment utilization in the univariate analysis (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19-2.73), but multivariate analysis showed that comorbid psychiatric disorders were not independently associated. Conclusion: These results indicate that individuals with more severe gambling problems utilize treatment at an older age when more adverse consequences have occurred. Further research should focus on proactive early interventions.