Background: Many individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) do not receive professional treatment due to various idiosyncratic barriers. Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (iCBT) is increasingly used to narrow treatment gaps, but the efficacy of such interventions without guidance of therapists has not been well studied. This study evaluated the efficacy of an unguided iCBT that includes third-wave approaches for the treatment of OCD symptoms. Methods: A total of 128 individuals with self-reported OCD symptoms were randomly allocated to either an intervention group (unguided iCBT) or to a care-asusual (CAU) control group following an anonymous baseline assessment via an online survey. Eight weeks after inclusion, a reassessment was carried out online. The Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale served as the primary outcome parameter for detecting symptom changes in the per-protocol sample with at least 60 minutes utilization. Results: The iCBT group showed a significantly stronger reduction of OCD symptoms with a medium effect size (η² p = 0.06) compared with the control condition. This effect was moderated by the general frequency of Internet usage (η² p = 0.08); the more time per day users spent online, the less they benefited from the intervention. Secondary outcomes revealed (1) a medium effect size on self-esteem (η² p = 0.06); (2) no statistically significant effects on quality of life, depression symptoms, impulsivity, or social insecurity; and (3) good acceptability of the intervention. Conclusions: The current study provides evidence that unguided iCBT for OCD may be a viable option for individuals who experience treatment barriers. As non-compliance remains a challenge, this topic needs further research.

IntroductionHealthcare systems around the world are looking for solutions to the growing problem of mental disorders. RECOVER is the synonym for an evidence-based, stepped and cross-sectoral coordinated care service model for mental disorders. RECOVER implements a cross-sectoral network with managed care, comprehensive psychological, somatic and social diagnostics, crisis resolution and a general structure of four severity levels, each with assigned evidence-based therapy models (eg, assertive community treatment) and therapies (eg, psychotherapy). The study rationale is the investigation of the effectiveness and efficiency of stepped and integrated care in comparison to standard care.Methods and analysisThe trial is conducted in accordance to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement. The study aims to compare the RECOVER model with treatment as usual (TAU). The following questions are examined: Does RECOVER reduce healthcare costs compared with TAU? Does RECOVER improve patient-relevant outcomes? Is RECOVER cost-effective compared with TAU? A total sample of 890 patients with mental disorders will be assessed at baseline and individually randomised into RECOVER or TAU. Follow-up assessments are conducted after 6 and 12 months. As primary outcomes, cost reduction, improvement in symptoms, daily functioning and quality of life as well as cost-effectiveness ratios will be measured. In addition, several secondary outcomes will be assessed. Primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated according to the intention-to-treat principle. Mixed linear or logistic regression models are used with the direct maximum likelihood estimation procedure which results in unbiassed estimators under the missing-at-random assumption. Costs due to healthcare utilisation and productivity losses are evaluated using difference-in-difference regressions.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from the ethics committee of the Hamburg Medical Association has been obtained (PV5672). The results will be disseminated to service users and their families via the media, to healthcare professionals via professional training and meetings and to researchers via conferences and publications.Trial registration number and registry nameClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03459664), RECOVERProtocol version19 March 2020 (V.3.0)

No abstract

The diagnostic value of subjective cognitive complaints for cognitive functioning in a clinical setting remains unresolved today. However, consensus exists on the relation between subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) and mood variables such as anxiety and depression. Hence, SCC have also been discussed as potential proxies of psychopathology rather than representing cognitive functioning. In order to shed more light on yet still unexplained variance in subjective cognitive complaints, the relation between lifestyle variables (such as nutrition habits, exercise, alcohol consumption, smoking, quality of sleep, and Body Mass Index) and subjective complaints of selective attention as well as subjective memory performance were assessed, additionally to the influence of objective memory performance, measures of anxiety, and depression. A sample of 877 (554 women) healthy, middle-aged individuals (51 years on average, age range 35-65) was assessed in the present study. In a logistic regression framework results revealed that the effect of lifestyle variables on subjective complaints of selective attention as well as subjective memory performance was rendered non-significant. Instead, subjective complaints of selective attention and subjective memory performance were significantly determined by measures of both, anxiety and depression. One unit increase in anxiety or depression led to an increase of 6 or 15% in subjective memory performance complaints, respectively. For subjective complaints of selective attention, a one unit increase in anxiety or depression led to an increase of 11 or 26%, respectively. The strong relation between SCC and measures of depression and anxiety corroborates the notion of SCC being indicative of mental health and general well-being.