Background Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. MethodsIn this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544.

Background: Stepped care service delivery models involve treatments that become increasingly intense through successive steps, with patients reassigned via pre-defined decision criteria. This article reviews the clinical effectiveness of stepped care systems for depression in working age adults. Methods: Systematic literature review of quantitative clinical outcome evidence comprising 14 controlled and uncontrolled studies meeting specified criteria. Principal outcomes were (a) recovery rates, defined as patients no longer meeting clinical cutoff criteria for the specific outcome measure and (b) treatment response rates, defined as a 50% decrease in outcome measure score. Results: Stepped care systems had recovery rates ranging predominantly between 40-60% and response rates approximating 60%. Studies comparing stepped care with usual/enhanced usual care tended to find significant differences favouring stepped care. The median recovery odds ratio was 1.31 (interquartile intervals of 1.05 and 1.66; k = 7 studies). The median comparative Cohen's d effect size estimate was 0.41 (interquartile intervals 0.25 and 0.45; k = 5 studies). Limitations: The inclusion of uncontrolled studies could be seen as reducing the overall quality of evidence and a meta-analysis was not included due to limitations with the available data. Conclusions: Evidence suggested that stepped care interventions for depression are at least as effective as usual care. However, the clinical and organisational superiority of stepped care is yet to be scientifically verified. Differential benefits of stepped care may ultimately depend on service quality. Further research investigating and comparing the specific components and configurations of stepped care interventions is indicated.

Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Results: Therapist effects accounted for 6-7% of outcome variance that was moderated by greater initial symptom severity, treatment duration, and non-completion of treatment.Clinically effective PWPs achieved almost double the change per treatment session. As treatment durations increased beyond protocol guidance, outcomes atrophied. Treatment noncompletion was particularly detrimental to outcome.Conclusions: PWPs appear to be differentially effective and efficient despite ostensibly delivering protocol driven interventions. Implications for services, training, and supervision are outlined.

Background:Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective psychological treatment for major depressive disorder, although some patients experience a return of symptoms after finishing therapy. The ability to predict which individuals are more vulnerable to deterioration would allow for targeted interventions to prevent short-term relapse and longer-term recurrence.Aim:This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify factors associated with an increased risk of relapse and/or recurrence (RR) after CBT for depression.Method:We reviewed 13 relevant papers, of which a small set of unique samples were eligible for meta-analysis (k = 5, N = 369). Twenty-six predictor variables were identified and grouped into seven categories: residual depressive symptoms; prior episodes of depression; cognitive reactivity; stressful life events; personality factors; clinical and diagnostic factors; demographics.Results:Meta-analyses indicated that residual depressive symptoms (r = 0.34 [0.10, 0.54], p = .01) and prior episodes (r = 0.19 [0.07, 0.30], p = .002) were statistically significant predictors of RR, but cognitive reactivity was not (r = 0.18 [−0.02, 0.36], p = .08). Other variables lacked replicated findings. On average, 33.4% of patients experienced RR after CBT.Conclusions:Patients with the above risk factors could be offered evidence-based continuation-phase interventions to enhance the longer-term effectiveness of CBT.

There is some evidence to indicate that socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poorer treatment outcomes, although limitations of the available data warrant treating this as a preliminary conclusion.