Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID).

BACKGROUND

Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event.

DESIGN

Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance.

SETTING

Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom's National Health Service.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation.

INTERVENTIONS

Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes, or to guided self-help using , an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for , Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for , Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority  = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for , Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority  = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified.

LIMITATIONS

The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event.

CONCLUSIONS

Guided self-help using for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition.

FUTURE WORK

Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using at scale.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in ; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.