Search

Despite their proliferation, limited knowledge exists regarding possible benefits of brief mindfulness ecological momentary interventions (MEMIs) for social anxiety disorder (SAD). Propositions that MEMIs could alleviate SAD symptoms and related clinical outcomes remain untested. This trial evaluated a 14-day MEMI for SAD. Participants with self-reported SAD were randomized to MEMI (n = 96) or self-monitoring app (SM; n = 95). Whereas MEMI instructed mindfulness exercises, SM prompted only self-monitoring five times daily for 14 days. Participants completed state-level self-reports of depression, anxiety, and mindfulness pre-post-mindfulness practice and SAD symptoms, worry, depression severity, repetitive negative thinking, and trait mindfulness at pre-randomization, post-intervention, and 1-month follow-up (1MFU). Hierarchical linear modeling was conducted. The MEMI yielded statistically significantly larger improvements in momentary depression, anxiety, and mindfulness (Cohen's d = −0.10–0.11). Although no between-group effects emerged in alleviating SAD fear and avoidance, excessive worry, depression severity, repetitive negative thinking, and trait mindfulness (−0.13–0.15), within-group effects were significantly small-to-large from pre-post and pre-1MFU (−4.62–0.67). A significant reduction in depression severity occurred in MEMI (−0.63–−0.60) but not SM (−0.31–−0.29). Brief MEMI and SM yielded nondifferent sustained effects on SAD, comorbid symptoms, and risk factors, highlighting its potential value within stepped-care delivery settings. • MEMI (vs. SM) notably improved state depression, anxiety, and mindfulness. • MEMI and SM enhanced SAD, worry, repetitive thinking, and trait mindfulness. • Depression severity was reduced in the MEMI but not the SM arm. • Brief MEMI might be efficacious for targeting pathological worry but not SAD. • MEMIs for SAD must be high-intensity and have exposure therapy to be efficacious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • CBT yielded greater symptom reduction than ABM when both were given standard doses. • However, rates of change were similar for both interventions on almost all measures. • Symptom change in CBT showed a reciprocal relationship with cognitive change. • Symptoms and attention away from threat were possibly related simultaneously in ABM. Abstract No studies have compared face-to-face cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and attention bias modification (ABM) for social anxiety disorder (SAD) and their purported mechanisms. We asked: 1) Is CBT more effective than ABM? and 2) Are changes in attentional biases and cognitions temporally related to symptom change? Forty-three patients were randomly assigned to 8 sessions of ABM or up to 20 sessions of individual CBT. Intent-to-treat results revealed that CBT was superior to ABM in response rates and on symptom measures at endpoint, but not on other measures. No differences were found on measures in rates of change between CBT and ABM. Frequency of negative cognitions changed in both groups and negative beliefs changed only in CBT. Attentional bias did not change in either group. Cognitive changes bidirectionally correlated with symptom change in cross-lagged analyses in CBT, but not in ABM, suggesting a reciprocal relationship. Trial-level bias away from negative faces was simultaneously related to symptom change in ABM only. Results suggest that CBT is superior to ABM when administered at their typical doses, but raise questions given the similar rates of change. In addition, results support theories of cognitive change and raise questions about changes in attentional biases in CBT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disorder-specific (DS-CBT) and transdiagnostic (TD-CBT) cognitive behaviour therapy have both been used to treat social anxiety disorder (SAD). This study compared internet-delivered DS-CBT and TD-CBT for SAD across clinician-guided (CG-CBT) and self-guided (SG-CBT) formats. Participants with SAD (n = 233) were randomly allocated to receive internet-delivered TD-CBT or DS-CBT and CG-CBT or SG-CBT. Large reductions in symptoms of SAD (Cohen’s d ≥ 1.01; avg. reduction ≥ 30%) and moderate-to-large reductions in symptoms of comorbid depression (Cohen’s d ≥ 1.25; avg. reduction ≥ 39%), generalised anxiety disorder (Cohen’s d ≥ 0.86; avg. reduction ≥ 36%) and panic disorder (Cohen’s d ≥ 0.53; avg. reduction ≥ 25%) were found immediately post-treatment and were maintained or further improved to 24-month follow-up. No marked differences were observed between TD-CBT and DS-CBT or CG-CBT and SG-CBT highlighting the potential of each for the treatment of SAD and comorbid disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) models implicate social threat cue vigilance (i.e., attentional biases) in symptom development and maintenance. A modified dot-probe protocol has been shown to reduce SAD symptoms, in some but not all studies, presumably by modifying an attentional bias. The current randomized controlled trial was designed to replicate and extend such research. Participants included treatment-seeking adults ( n = 108; 58% women) who met diagnostic criteria for SAD. Participants were randomly assigned to a standard (i.e., control) or modified (i.e., active) dot-probe protocol condition and to participate in-lab or at home. The protocol involved twice-weekly 15-min sessions, for 4 weeks, with questionnaires completed at baseline, post-treatment, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. Symptom reports were assessed with repeated measures mixed hierarchical modeling. There was a main effect of time from baseline to post-treatment wherein social anxiety symptoms declined significantly ( p < .05) but depression and trait anxiety did not ( p > .05). There were no significant interactions based on condition or participation location ( p s > .05). Reductions were maintained at 8-month follow-up. Symptom reductions were not correlated with threat biases as indexed by the dot-probe task. The modified and standard protocol both produced significant sustained symptom reductions, whether administered in-lab or at home. There were no robust differences based on protocol type. As such, the mechanisms for benefits associated with modified dot-probe protocols warrant additional research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]