Activities per year
Abstract
Background
Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is the treatment of choice for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), yielding significant improvements in approximately 50% of patients. There is significant room for improvement in the outcomes of treatment, especially in recovery.
Aims
We aimed to compare metacognitive therapy (MCT) with the gold standard treatment, CBT, in patients with GAD (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00426426).
Method
A total of 246 patients with long-term GAD were assessed and 81 were randomised into three conditions: CBT (n = 28), MCT (n = 32) and a wait-list control (n = 21). Assessments were made at pre-treatment, post-treatment and at 2 year follow-up.
Results
Both CBT and MCT were effective treatments, but MCT was more effective (mean difference 9.762, 95% CI 2.679–16.845, P = 0.004) and led to significantly higher recovery rates (65% v. 38%). These differences were maintained at 2 year follow-up.
Conclusions
MCT seems to produce recovery rates that exceed those of CBT. These results demonstrate that the effects of treatment cannot be attributed to non-specific therapy factors.
Declaration of interest
A.W. wrote the treatment protocol in MCT and several books on CBT and MCT, and receives royalties from these. T.D.B. wrote the protocol in CBT and has published several articles and chapters on CBT and receives royalties from these. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is the treatment of choice for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), yielding significant improvements in approximately 50% of patients. There is significant room for improvement in the outcomes of treatment, especially in recovery.
Aims
We aimed to compare metacognitive therapy (MCT) with the gold standard treatment, CBT, in patients with GAD (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00426426).
Method
A total of 246 patients with long-term GAD were assessed and 81 were randomised into three conditions: CBT (n = 28), MCT (n = 32) and a wait-list control (n = 21). Assessments were made at pre-treatment, post-treatment and at 2 year follow-up.
Results
Both CBT and MCT were effective treatments, but MCT was more effective (mean difference 9.762, 95% CI 2.679–16.845, P = 0.004) and led to significantly higher recovery rates (65% v. 38%). These differences were maintained at 2 year follow-up.
Conclusions
MCT seems to produce recovery rates that exceed those of CBT. These results demonstrate that the effects of treatment cannot be attributed to non-specific therapy factors.
Declaration of interest
A.W. wrote the treatment protocol in MCT and several books on CBT and MCT, and receives royalties from these. T.D.B. wrote the protocol in CBT and has published several articles and chapters on CBT and receives royalties from these. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 393-400 |
Journal | British Journal of Psychiatry Open |
Volume | 4 |
Early online date | 11 Sept 2018 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2018 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Metacognitive therapy versus cognitive-behavioural therapy in adults with generalised anxiety disorder'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Impacts
-
Metacognitive Therapy Improves Outcomes for Patients with Anxiety and Depression Worldwide
Wells, A. (Participant), Reeves, D. (Participant) & (Participant)
Impact: Economic, Health and wellbeing
Activities
- 1 Organising a conference, workshop, exhibition, performance, inquiry, course etc
-
Fourth International Conference of Metacognitive Therapy
Wells, A. (Chair)
30 Apr 2019 → 2 May 2019Activity: Participating in or organising event(s) › Organising a conference, workshop, exhibition, performance, inquiry, course etc › Research
File