To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic disorders. We developed a lifestyle intervention, named LIFT, aimed at improving lifestyle habits (physical activity, diet, alcohol and tobacco use, stress, sleep) and reducing cardiometabolic risk factors in OCD.
Aims
This study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of LIFT, evaluate its preliminary efficacy and explore experiences of participation.
Method
Individuals with OCD and at least three cardiometabolic risk factors (e.g. physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, overweight/obesity, dyslipidaemia) were offered LIFT, consisting of one individual session to set individual goals, six educational group sessions and 12 exercise group sessions, delivered over 3 months. We collected baseline, post-intervention and 3-month follow-up measures. Preliminary efficacy variables were analysed with linear mixed models and within-group effect sizes. Qualitative interviews were conducted.
Results
Out of 147 screened individuals, 25 were included (68% women, mean age 37.4, s.d. = 10.9). Credibility and satisfaction were high, attrition rates were low (16%) and the programme was generally safe. Recruitment and adherence to the intervention were challenging. Statistically significant improvements were observed in dietary habits, alcohol consumption, stress, OCD symptom severity and general functioning (within-group effect sizes ranging from 0.27 to 0.56). No changes were observed in physical activity, sleep or any physiological or laboratory measures.
Conclusions
Overall, LIFT was a feasible intervention for individuals with OCD. Effects on lifestyle habits, mental health and functioning are promising. Fully powered randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate its efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
The post-COVID-19 condition describes the persistence or onset of somatic symptoms (e.g. fatigue) after acute COVID-19. Based on an existing cognitive-behavioral treatment protocol, we developed a specialized group intervention for individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. The present study examines the feasibility, acceptance, and effectiveness of the program for inpatients in a neurological rehabilitation setting.
Methods
The treatment program comprises eight sessions and includes psychoeducational and experience-based interventions on common psychophysiological mechanisms of persistent somatic symptoms. A feasibility trial was conducted using a one-group design in a naturalistic setting. N = 64 inpatients with a history of mild COVID-19 that fulfilled WHO criteria for post-COVID-19 condition were enrolled. After each session, evaluation forms were completed and psychometric questionnaires on somatic and psychopathological symptom burden were collected pre- and post-intervention.
Results
The treatment program was well received by participants and therapists. Each session was rated as comprehensible and overall satisfaction with the sessions was high. Pre-post effect sizes (of standard rehabilitation incl. new treatment program; intention-to-treat) showed significantly reduced subjective fatigue (p < 0.05, dav = 0.33) and improved disease coping (ps < 0.05, dav = 0.33–0.49).
Conclusions
Our results support the feasibility and acceptance of the newly developed cognitive-behavioral group intervention for individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. Yet, findings have to be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of a control group and follow-up measurement, the small sample size, and a relatively high drop-out rate.
Rigorous evaluation of interventions is vital to advance the science of behavior change and identify effective interventions. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the “gold standard”, other designs are also useful. Considerations when choosing intervention design are the research questions, the stage of evaluation, and different evaluation perspectives. Approaches to explore the utility of an intervention, include a focus on (1) efficacy; (2) “real-world” effectiveness; (3) how an intervention works to produce change; or (4) how the intervention interacts with context. Many evaluation designs are available: experimental, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental. Each has strengths and limitations and choice of design should be driven by the research question. Choosing relevant outcomes is an important step in planning an evaluation. A typical approach is to identify one primary outcome and a narrow range of secondary outcomes. However, focus on one primary outcome means other important changes may be missed. A well-developed program theory helps identify a relevant outcomes. High-quality evaluation requires (1) involvement of relevant stakeholders; (2) evaluating and updating program theory; (3) consideration of the wider context; (4) addressing implementation issues; and (5) appropriate economics input. Addressing these can increase the quality, usefulness, and impact of behavior change interventions.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.