Search

BACKGROUND:Anxiety and depression are closely associated. However, they are typically treated separately and there is a dearth of information on tackling them together. AIMS:The study's purpose was to establish how best to treat co-occurring anxiety and depression in a routine clinical service-specifically, to compare cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) focusing only on depression (CBT-D) to a broader CBT focusing on both depression and anxiety (CBT-DA). METHOD:Case notes of 69 patients with equally severe clinical levels of depression and anxiety seen in a routine clinical service were randomly selected to review from a pool of 990 patients. The mean age was 44.61 years (SD = 12.97). 65% of the sample were female and 88% reported their ethnicity white. The content of electronic records reporting techniques used and scores on a measure of depression (The Patient Health Questionnaire) and anxiety (The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment) were reviewed to categorise therapy as CBT-D or CBT-DA. RESULTS:Results indicated significant overall improvement with CBT; 70% and 77% of the sample met criteria for reliable improvement on The Patient Health Questionnaire and The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment respectively. Fewer patients who received CBT-DA met The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment recovery criteria at the end of treatment than those who received CBT-D. Mean post treatment PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores remained above threshold for those receiving CBT_DA but not those receiving CBT-D. There was no evidence suggesting CBT-DA was superior to CBT-D. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with equally severe clinical levels of depression and anxiety, a broader treatment addressing both anxiety and depression does not appear to be associated with improved outcomes compared to treatment focused on depression.

Background: Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic paediatric conditions. Children and young people with epilepsy are at a significantly higher risk of developing mental health problems relative to the general population, yet the majority of these problems are unrecognised and under-treated in clinical practice. Although there is little epilepsy-specific guidance as to what interventions to use, researchers suggest there is no reason why clinicians should not be using the evidence base. Given the poor prognosis of untreated mental health difficulties, this cohort study sought to identify what psychological treatment young people with epilepsy with mental health needs receive in routine practice. Methods: Participants were children and young people aged 3 to 18 attending paediatric neurology clinics. The parents of those children who met threshold for impairing symptoms on the Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire were asked to complete the Development and Well-being Assessment (DAWBA), an online clinical assessment designed to generate psychiatric diagnoses. Participants who met clinical threshold for a disorder according to the DAWBA were provided with a bespoke measure asking questions regarding their experience with treatment for mental health support. Results: 16 of the 46 parents who completed the DAWBA reported that they had experienced previous or current support for their child’s mental health difficulties. The mental health support offered to families was highly variable, inadequate and often not clearly compliant with existing UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for mental health treatment in children and young people. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates the inconsistency and inadequacy of mental health provision for children and young people with epilepsy. Future work should explore reasons for the treatments offered failing to adhere to existing guidance for mental health difficulties in children, as well as possible solutions to this.