Evidence Hub

A randomised controlled trial of treatments of childhood anxiety disorder in the context of maternal anxiety disorder: clinical and cost‐effectiveness outcomes

C. Creswell, M. Violato, Susan Cruddace, S. Gerry, L. Murray, R. Shafran, A. Stein, L. Willetts et al.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 2019

25 citations

Abstract

Background This study evaluated whether clinical and economic outcomes from CBT for child anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders are improved by adding treatment focused on (a) maternal anxiety disorders or (b) mother–child interactions. Methods Two hundred and eleven children (7–12 years, 85% White British, 52% female) with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had a current anxiety disorder, were randomised to receive (a) child‐focused CBT with nonspecific control interventions (CCBT+Con), (b) CCBT with CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder (CCBT+MCBT), or (c) CCBT with an intervention targeting the mother–child interaction (CCBT+MCI). A cost‐utility analysis from a societal perspective was conducted using mother/child combined quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs). [Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/isrctn19762288]. Results MCBT was associated with immediate reductions in maternal anxiety compared to the nonspecific control; however, after children had also received CCBT, maternal outcomes in the CCBT+MCI and CCBT+Con arms improved and CCBT+MCBT was no longer superior. Neither CCBT+MCBT nor CCBT+MCI conferred a benefit over CCBT+Con in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses post‐treatment [primary outcome] (adj RR: 1.22 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.67), p = .23; adj RR: 1.21 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.65), p = .24, respectively) or global improvement ratings (adj RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.57), p = .06; adj RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.50), p = .17) or…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free