Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
While most bereaved individuals cope adaptively with the loss of a loved one, a significant minority experiences more severe and complicated grief reactions. Complicated grief reactions is an umbrella term for different types of post-loss complications, including symptoms of Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD), depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress. These post-loss complications may all cause persistent suffering and functional impairment, thus pointing to a need for efficacious treatment.
While Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is a relatively well-documented efficacious treatment for symptoms of PGD, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress in the period after a loss, the relative efficacy of a transdiagnostic individually delivered versus group-based CBT for these types of complicated grief reactions (CBTgrief) remain unknown. Furthermore, little evidence exists about the relative cost-effectiveness of individually delivered versus group-based CBTgrief and why and how it works. The theory of CBTgrief proposes that it works by targeting three maintaining mechanisms in PGD: 1) Insufficient integration of the loss, 2) negative loss-related cognitions, and 3) depressive and anxious avoidance. These maintaining mechanisms have also shown to be statistically associated with depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress in the period after a loss, suggesting that different types of complicated grief reactions might share some of the same maintaining mechanisms. However, this proposed theory of change has yet to be empirically tested as a whole.
These knowledge gaps are crucial for the understanding of efficacious and cost-effective treatment formats as well as central treatment mechanisms in the psychological treatment of complicated grief reactions. The present study thus aims to examine the relative efficacy of an individually delivered versus group-based CBTgrief by means of a randomized non-inferiority trial. Secondary aims include an investigation of the relative cost-effectiveness of individually delivered versus group-based CBTgrief as well as treatment mediators. Finally, explorative analyses of potential moderators of intervention effects of CBTgrief will be conducted.
Full description
Aims of the study:
Primary hypothesis:
Group-based CBTgrief will show non-inferiority (i.e., equal efficacy) in reducing symptoms of PGD compared to individually delivered CBTgrief at six months follow-up.
Secondary hypotheses:
Design: The present study is conducted as a randomized non-inferiority trial of individually delivered versus group-based CBTgrief using block randomization.
Participants: Participants are recruited from the Danish National Center for Grief (DNCG), which is a Danish national organization that provide specialized psychological therapy to bereaved individuals who have lost a loved one. The therapists at the DNCG will screen and treat bereaved elderly people for complicated grief reactions with CBTgrief at their clinics in Odense and Copenhagen, Denmark. DNCG identifies participants through consultants, local practitioners, self-referral, and the DNCG grief support line.
Assessment points: Participants will be assessed at pre-, mid-, and post-intervention as well as at three and six months follow-up (T1-T5). Additionally, data on healthcare utilization will be retrieved from the Danish national registers concerning use of health care services such as visits to general practitioners, psychologists etc.
Sample size: A group sample size of 2x64 will enable us to detect non-inferiority between individually delivered and group-based CBTgrief with a non-inferiority of -0.5 SD on the primary outcome, i.e. symptoms of PGD, and a statistical power of 0.80. The true difference is assumed to be 0.0 and the one-sided significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.025. Based on an estimated dropout rate of 20% the total number of participants needed to recruit is N=160 participants.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
113 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Maja O'Connor, PhD; Katrine B. Komischke-Konnerup, MSc
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal