A Universal Prevention Trial of Anxiety Symptomology during Childhood: Results at 1-Year Follow-up
A number of published studies have provided empirical support for both individual and group CBT treatment as being more effective than a waitlist condition for reducing anxiety when implemented by extensively trained and supervised clinicians, (Barrett, Dadds, & Rapee, 1996; Barrett, 1998; Cobham, Dadds, & Spence, 1999; Dadds, Holland, Barrett, Laurens, & Spence, 1997; Flannery-Schroeder & Kendall, 2000; Mendelowitz et al., 1999; Kendall, 1994; Kendall et al., 1997; King et al., 1998; Last, Hanson, & Franco, 1998; Shortt, Barrett, Dadds & Fox, 2001; Silverman et al., 1999). These independent clinical trials indicate that anxiety disorders in late childhood and early adolescence can be effectively treated. Yet of those in need of mental health services, less than 20% receive appropriate care, with children in need not being reached, long waiting lists and noshow rates and family dropouts sometimes exceeding 50% (Day & Roberts, 1991; Tuma,1989; Weist, 1999; Zubrick et al. 1997).
Subsequently, over the last few years, prevention has been touted as the most important direction for researchers and clinicians to focus on in dealing with anxiety disorders during childhood and adolescence (Dadds et al., 1997; King, Hamilton, & Murphy, 1983; Munoz, 2001; Spence, 1994; Spence, 2001). Controlled preventive interventions are only slowly beginning to emerge. For example Dadds, Spence, Holland, Barrett, and Laurens (1997), conducted the first controlled prevention trial with a community cohort of anxious children. This project employed a combined indicated1 and selective2 approach to the development of anxiety disorders in young people. We aimed to provide a comprehensive coverage of children, including those who were disorder free but showed mild anxious features, through to children who met diagnostic criteria for an anxiety disorder, but at a low level of severity. Immediately following completion of the program, no significant differences were evident between the two groups. However, at 6-month followup, the results demonstrated not only a significant reduction in existing anxiety, but also a prevention effect, where 58% of children in the monitoring group progressed to a diagnosable disorder, compared to only 16% of the intervention group. Moreover, even at 24 months follow-up these improvements were maintained in the intervention group only (Dadds, Holland, Barrett, Laurens, & Spence, 1999). Examination of predictors of chronic anxiety showed that being female and parental anxiety were predictive of an anxiety disorder at posttreatment, while children with high levels of internalising symptoms at pretreatment and children in the monitoring group were more likely to have an anxiety disorder at posttreatment and at 2-year follow-up.
Overall, these results are promising, particularly given the design of the study (randomized trial) and the use of diagnostic classifications as outcome measures. As such, this trial demonstrated that anxiety disorders can be ameliorated and prevented, avoiding the high levels of subjective distress for individuals and their families, and the negative long-term consequences in terms of disruption to relationships, schooling and vocational development. Similarly the few other selective based prevention programs reported in the literature with internalising problems in young people (i.e., depression: Jaycox, Reivick, Gillham,& Seligman, 1994; and shyness in preschoolers: La Frenier & Capuano, 1997) also found positive results when implemented by specialist staff. Despite these encouraging results, this model of prevention has a number of limitations inherent in its design. That is, a labelling or stigmatising effect may have been created because the studies were based on identifying individuals “at risk” for anxiety or depression, and therefore may run contrary to the intention of promoting children’s self confidence and esteem. Further, the Jaycox et al. (1994) study encountered difficulties in recruiting and maintaining the attendance of participants as the program was implemented outside of normal disorder, but at a low level of severity. Immediately following completion of the program, no significant differences were evident between the two groups. However, at 6-month followup, the results demonstrated not only a significant reduction in existing anxiety, but also a prevention effect, where 58% of children in the monitoring group progressed to a diagnosable disorder, compared to only 16% of the intervention group.