Clinical anxiety is among the most common and impairing psychiatric conditions affecting children and adolescents. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is an effective psychological treatment for youth anxiety, with roughly 60% of youth showing considerable clinical response and global improvements in functioning. Regrettably, despite the existence of well-supported treatments, most youth with anxiety disorders do not receive any form of treatment, especially in resource poor settings.
To extend the reach of CBT, research has provided initial support for several modernized modes of CBT delivery that differentially draw on technology to support varying levels of therapist involvement. For example, telehealth and hybrid options (i.e., mix of telehealth and office-based care) leverage synchronous telecommunications (typically videoconferencing) for the remote provision of live and interactive therapist-led care. Telehealth has been increasingly studied with success as a means to overcome several logistical challenges to traditional brick-and-mortar CBT for youth anxiety and stigma about attending a mental health facility. After years of initial research,m telehealth and hybrid formats became a dominant mode of outpatient mental health care, and in post-pandemic times these formats still play a prominent role (albeit understudied) role in youth mental health care.
Whereas telehealth and hybrid formats offer opportunities to extend the reach of therapist-led CBT, guided online CBT (i.e., self-paced and relatively automated care with minimal therapist involvement) offers a computerized treatment delivery format that reduces therapist demands and person-power needs relative to therapist-led care. For some, guided online CBT may be a more accessible, acceptable, and even effective format, although attrition can be high in self-paced care.
Despite great promise in the use of technology-based strategies for expanding the reach of CBT for pediatric anxiety, much remains to be learned about how such alternative CBT formats perform in typical care settings, what factors may facilitate versus challenge successful implementation and engagement in usual care settings, and whether specific subpopulations of anxious youth may differentially benefit from these options. As with the majority of controlled evidence supporting therapist-led CBT for youth anxiety, most support for telehealth and hybrid CBT has come from trials conducted in tightly controlled contexts and anxiety specialty clinics with highly selected samples and research therapists. Such work cannot speak to the effectiveness of telehealth effectiveness under typical care circumstances. Many of these studies have also been relatively small and underpowered to examine predictors of differential telehealth response. With regard to guided online CBT for pediatric anxiety, research to date has been conducted with predominantly non-Hispanic White and English-speaking samples, and most of the trials have been implemented in anxiety-specialty clinics and/or research settings. Evaluating the effectiveness of guided online CBT in diverse populations under usual care conditions is critical for understanding the extent to which this format can truly expand the accessibility and acceptability of care and reach underserved populations. Furthermore, clinical trials of guided online CBT for anxiety have not included a therapist-led treatment comparison, rendering it hard to make informed comparisons across treatment formats and precluding an understanding of which CBT formats for youth anxiety work best for whom.
The pediatric health care setting offers an optimal public health venue for youth anxiety management, yet there is a critical lack of behavioral health specialty care providers in these settings who are trained in providing mental health treatment, and a lack of information on the optimal methods of treating anxiety in pediatric settings. Accordingly, technology-based treatment options may be a particularly welcome format in pediatric usual care settings..
The Kids FACE FEARS study design entails a large-scale, streamlined, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial (RCT), in which eligible youth with elevated anxiety identified in pediatric health care settings will be randomly assigned to therapist-led CBT (delivered via telehealth, hybrid, or office-based) versus guided online CBT intervention for youth anxiety and monitored for up to one year out. Outcomes for each participant will be monitored across four major assessment points, corresponding to baseline, mid-treatment, post-treatment, and 1 year follow-up. Acute and longer-term outcomes associated with therapist-led versus guided online CBT will be evaluated over a 1-year follow-up period. We will use the well-established Cool Kids suite of therapist-led and online anxiety CBT protocols within pediatric health care networks serving primarily racial-ethnic minority children in both urban and rural settings across four regions of the US: the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, and the Pacific Northwest. Natural providers (i.e., not research therapists or anxiety specialists) in these pediatric usual care settings will provide all services. All participants will be identified and referred for enrollment from pediatric health settings. All care and study materials will be provided in English and Spanish.
This study addresses three critical yet unanswered questions related to improving the delivery of modernized CBT formats and treatment outcomes for anxiety in pediatric usual care settings. Answering the following question offers the potential to meaningfully improve the quality of the evidence available to help children, families, and organizational stakeholders make informed, patient-centered decisions regarding clinical practice and implementation strategies for the treatment of youth anxiety:
1. Comparative Effectiveness: What is the comparative effectiveness of therapist-led (telehelath, hybrid or office-based) versus guided online formats of CBT to treat youth anxiety presenting to pediatric usual care settings?
2. Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects: Are there key factors that predict or moderate differential treatment engagement or response? Such factors, in turn, can inform treatment personalization for various patient subgroups, and ultimately more patient-centered care for pediatric anxiety.
3. What are the barriers and facilitators to delivering these treatment comparators in pediatric usual care settings and for the diverse patient populations served?
