Low intensity vs. self-guided internet-delivered psychotherapy for major depression: a multicenter, controlled, randomized study.

BACKGROUND Major depression will become the second most important cause of disability in 2020. Computerized cognitive-behaviour therapy could be an efficacious and cost-effective option for its treatment. No studies on cost-effectiveness of low intensity vs self-guided psychotherapy has been carried out. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of low intensity vs self-guided psychotherapy for major depression in the Spanish health system. METHODS The study is made up of 3 phases: 1.- Development of a computerized cognitive-behaviour therapy for depression tailored to Spanish health system. 2.- Multicenter controlled, randomized study: A sample (N=450 patients) with mild/moderate depression recruited in primary care. They should have internet availability at home, not receive any previous psychological treatment, and not suffer from any other severe somatic or psychological disorder. They will be allocated to one of 3 treatments: a) Low intensity Internet-delivered psychotherapy + improved treatment as usual (ITAU) by GP, b) Self-guided Internet-delivered psychotherapy + ITAU or c) ITAU. Patients will be diagnosed with MINI psychiatric interview. Main outcome variable will be Beck Depression Inventory. It will be also administered EuroQol 5D (quality of life) and Client Service Receipt Inventory (consume of health and social services). Patients will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 12 months. An intention to treat and a per protocol analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION The comparisons between low intensity and self-guided are infrequent, and also a comparative economic evaluation between them and compared with usual treatment in primary. The strength of the study is that it is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of low intensity and self-guided Internet-delivered psychotherapy for depression in primary care, being the treatment completely integrated in primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trials NCT01611818.

Bladder cancer index: cross-cultural adaptation into Spanish and psychometric evaluation.

BACKGROUND The Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) is so far the only instrument applicable across all bladder cancer patients, independent of tumor infiltration or treatment applied. We developed a Spanish version of the BCI, and assessed its acceptability and metric properties. METHODS For the adaptation into Spanish we used the forward and back-translation method, expert panels, and cognitive debriefing patient interviews. For the assessment of metric properties we used data from 197 bladder cancer patients from a multi-center prospective study. The Spanish BCI and the SF-36 Health Survey were self-administered before and 12 months after treatment. Reliability was estimated by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was assessed through the multi-trait multi-method matrix. The magnitude of change was quantified by effect sizes to assess responsiveness. RESULTS Reliability coefficients ranged 0.75-0.97. The validity analysis confirmed moderate associations between the BCI function and bother subscales for urinary (r = 0.61) and bowel (r = 0.53) domains; conceptual independence among all BCI domains (r ≤ 0.3); and low correlation coefficients with the SF-36 scores, ranging 0.14-0.48. Among patients reporting global improvement at follow-up, pre-post treatment changes were statistically significant for the urinary domain and urinary bother subscale, with effect sizes of 0.38 and 0.53. CONCLUSIONS The Spanish BCI is well accepted, reliable, valid, responsive, and similar in performance compared to the original instrument. These findings support its use, both in Spanish and international studies, as a valuable and comprehensive tool for assessing quality of life across a wide range of bladder cancer patients.