Explore the vast range of titles available.

Stuttering is a speech disorder in which the flow of speech is disrupted by involuntary repetitions of sounds, syllables, words or phrases, stretched sounds or silent pauses in which the person is unable to produce sounds and sound transitions. Treatment success is the highest if stuttering is treated before the age of 6 years, before it develops into “persistent” stuttering. Stuttering treatment programs that focus directly on the speech of the child, like the Lidcombe Program, have shown to be effective in this age group. Mini-KIDS is also a treatment that focuses directly on the speech of the child. It is possible that capturing the increased brain plasticity at this age in combination with creating optimal conditions for recovery underlie these treatments’ success rate. A treatment focusing on the cognitions, emotions and behaviour of the child, the social cognitive behaviour treatment (SCBT), is also frequently delivered in Belgium. In this study we want to compare, and collect data on the effectiveness, of these three treatment programs: Mini-KIDS, SCBT and the Lidcombe Program (protocol registered under number NCT05185726). 249 children will be allocated to one of three treatment groups. Stuttering specialists will treat the child (and guide the parents) with Mini-KIDS, the SCBT or the Lidcombe Program. They will be trained to deliver the programs meticulously. At 18 months after randomisation, the speech fluency of the child and the attitude of the child and parent(s) towards speech will be measured. It is expected that the three programs will achieve the same (near) zero levels of stuttering in nearly all children and a positive attitude towards speech at 18 months after the start of treatment. The amount of treatment hours to reach the (near) zero levels of stuttering will be compared between the different programmes. For families as well as for the health system this could generate important information.

\"Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is a common eating disorder diagnosis that describes children and adults who cannot meet their nutritional needs, typically because of sensory sensitivity, fear of adverse consequences and/or apparent lack of interest in eating or food. This book is the first of its kind to offer a specialist treatment, specifically for ARFID. Developed, refined and studied in response to this urgent clinical need, this book outlines a specialized cognitive-behavioral treatment: Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (CBT-AR). This treatment is designed for patients across all age groups, supported by real-life case examples and tools to allow clinicians to apply this new treatment in their own clinical settings.\"--Publisher's website.

Purpose of Review This review aims at reporting the current evidence of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on grief in children. Recent Findings Evidence from the scientific literature shows that the severity of grief in children is impacted by numerous risk factors which can lead to prolonged grief disorder (PGD). Summary Among these risk factors are the unpredictability of the death, the lack of understanding about what is happening by the child, the global insecurity raised by the context of the pandemic or again the impossibility for the child to find comfort with his peers due to the lock-down. No medical-based approach has proven efficient on PGD in children. However, cognitive based therapy can lower the severity of the symptoms. Future efforts should focus on developing therapeutic strategies to specifically fit the needs of children with PGD, in the context of a major crisis such as this pandemic.

Insomnia is highly prevalent in patients with nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP). Given the close interaction between insomnia and pain, targeting sleep problems during therapy could improve treatment outcomes. To evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTi) integrated in best-evidence pain management (BEPM) vs BEPM only in patients with nCSP and insomnia. A multicenter randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up was conducted between April 10, 2018, and April 30, 2022. Data and statistical analysis were performed between May 1, 2022, and April 24, 2023. Patients with nCSP and insomnia were evaluated using self-report and at-home polysomnography, to exclude underlying sleep pathologic factors. Participants were treated at the University Hospital Brussels or University Hospital Ghent, Belgium. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Participants were randomized to either CBTi-BEPM or BEPM only. Both groups received 18 treatment sessions over 14 weeks. The CBTi-BEPM treatment included 6 CBTi sessions and 12 BEPM sessions. The BEPM treatment included pain neuroscience education (3 sessions) and exercise therapy (9 sessions in the CBTi-BEPM group, 15 sessions in the BEPM-only group). The primary outcome was change in mean pain intensity (assessed with Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) at 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory secondary outcomes included several pain- and sleep-related outcomes. Blinded outcome assessment took place at baseline, posttreatment, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. A total of 123 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [11.18] years; 84 women [68.3%]) were included in the trial. In 99 participants (80.5%) with 12-month BPI data, the mean pain intensity at 12 months decreased by 1.976 points (reduction of 40%) in the CBTi-BEPM group and 1.006 points (reduction of 24%) points in the BEPM-only group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in pain intensity change between groups (mean group difference, 0.970 points; 95% CI, -0.051 to 1.992; Cohen d, 2.665). Treatment with CBTi-BEPM resulted in a response for BPI average pain with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4 observed during 12 months. On a preliminary basis, CBTi-BEPM was, consistently over time and analyses, more effective than BEPM only for improving insomnia severity (Cohen d, 4.319-8.961; NNT for response ranging from 2 to 4, and NNT for remission ranging from 5 to 12), sleep quality (Cohen d, 3.654-6.066), beliefs about sleep (Cohen d, 5.324-6.657), depressive symptoms (Cohen d, 2.935-3.361), and physical fatigue (Cohen d, 2.818-3.770). No serious adverse effects were reported. In this randomized clinical trial, adding CBTi to BEPM did not further improve pain intensity reduction for patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia more than BEPM alone. Yet, as CBTi-BEPM led to significant and clinically important changes in insomnia severity and sleep quality, CBTi integrated in BEPM should be considered in the treatment of patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia. Further research can investigate the patient characteristics that moderate the response to CBTi-BEPM in terms of pain-related outcomes, as understanding of these moderators may be of utmost clinical importance. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03482856.

Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown a significant intervention effect of internet-based computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) on improving nonclinical depressive symptoms among healthy workers and community residents in a primary prevention setting. Time preference is one's relative valuation for having a reward (eg, money) at present than at a later date. Time preference may affect the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy. This RCT aimed to test the difference of intervention effect of an iCBT program on improving nonclinical depressive symptoms between two subgroups classified post-hoc on the basis of time preference among workers in Japan. All workers in one corporate group (approximate n=20,000) were recruited. Participants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to either intervention or control groups. Participants in the intervention group completed 6 weekly lessons and homework assignments within the iCBT program. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and Kessler's Psychological Distress Scale (K6) measures were obtained at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Two subgroups were defined by the median of time preference score at baseline. Only few (835/20,000, 4.2%) workers completed the baseline survey. Of the 835 participants, 706 who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Participants who selected irrational time preference options were excluded (21 and 18 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively). A three-way interaction (group [intervention/control] × time [baseline/follow-up] × time preference [higher/lower]) effect of iCBT was significant for BDI-II (t =2.33, P=.02) and K6 (t =2.51, P=.01) at the 3-month follow-up, with a greater effect of the iCBT in the group with higher time preference. No significant three-way interaction was found at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The effects of the iCBT were greater for the group with higher time preference at the shorter follow-up, but it was leveled off later. Workers with higher time preference may change their cognition or behavior more quickly, but these changes may not persist. UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000014146; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi? recptno=R000016466 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70o2rNk2V).

People with social anxiety disorder (SAD) fear social interactions and may be reluctant to seek treatments involving exposure to social situations. Social exposure conducted in virtual reality (VR), embedded in individual cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), could be an answer. To show that conducting VR exposure in CBT for SAD is effective and is more practical for therapists than conducting exposure Participants were randomly assigned to either VR exposure ( = 17), exposure ( = 22) or waiting list ( = 20). Participants in the active arms received individual CBT for 14 weekly sessions and outcome was assessed with questionnaires and a behaviour avoidance test. (Trial registration number ISRCTN99747069) Improvements were found on the primary (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale) and all five secondary outcome measures in both CBT groups compared with the waiting list. Conducting exposure in VR was more effective at post-treatment than on the primary outcome measure and on one secondary measure. Improvements were maintained at the 6-month follow-up. VR was significantly more practical for therapists than exposure. Using VR can be advantageous over standard CBT as a potential solution for treatment avoidance and as an efficient, cost-effective and practical medium of exposure.