COMPARING TELEPHONIC ENGAGEMENT AND IN PERSON BRIEF PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTION: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL ON ADJUSTMENT DISORDER IN ADULTS

Abstract

Background:Adjustment disorder, a prevalent mental health condition, manifests emotional or behavioral symptoms in response to identifiable stressors, significantly impacting daily functioning and overall well-being. Previous research has explored various intervention methods, including in-person therapy and telephonic interventions, highlighting the effectiveness of both approaches. However, there is a need for further investigation to compare the efficacy of these modalities. Randomized control trials are crucial for establishing evidence-based practices and informing clinical decision-making in the treatment of adjustment disorder. This study aims to directly compare telephonic engagement with in-person brief psychological interventions to contribute valuable insights into their effectiveness. By addressing this gap in the literature, the research seeks to optimize treatment strategies and improve outcomes for adults experiencing adjustment disorder.

Methods: This study utilized a randomized control trial (RCT) design, mirroring previous research examining intervention methods for adjustment disorder. Participants meeting specific criteria, including age range and diagnosis of adjustment disorder, were selected using standardized screening tools. Randomization employed computer-generated algorithms to allocate participants to either the telephonic engagement or in-person brief psychological intervention group.

Telephonic engagement sessions followed established guidelines for remote psychological support, featuring structured sessions administered by trained mental health professionals. In-person brief psychological interventions adhered to recognized frameworks for face-to-face therapy, emphasizing brief, solution-focused techniques to alleviate adjustment disorder symptoms.

Outcome measures included the Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Scale, a widely used tool in adjustment disorder research, to assess the severity of depressive symptoms

Results: The study included a total of 50 participants diagnosed with adjustment disorder, with 25 assigned to the telephonic engagement group and 25 to the in-person brief psychological intervention group. Participants had a mean age of 42.3 years (SD = 4.8) and were predominantly female (72%). The majority of participants were employed full-time (56%) and had completed at least a high school education (80%). These demographic characteristics closely resemble those reported in similar studies, enhancing the generalizability of the sample.

Outcomes of Intervention Groups: Both intervention groups showed significant improvements in depressive symptoms, as measured by the HAM-D scale, following the 8-week intervention period. However, participants in the in-person brief psychological intervention group exhibited greater reductions in depressive symptom severity compared to the telephonic engagement group. Specifically, participants in the in-person group experienced a mean decrease of 11 points on the HAM-D scale (p < 0.001), while those in the telephonic group experienced a mean decrease of 7 points (p < 0.01).

Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in treatment efficacy between the two intervention methods (p = 0.048). Post-analysis indicated that participants in the in-person brief psychological intervention group had significantly lower post-intervention HAM-D scores compared to those in the telephonic engagement group. These findings are consistent with previous research, which has consistently demonstrated the superiority of in-person interventions for addressing adjustment disorder symptoms.

Conclusion :the study demonstrates that both telephonic engagement and in-person brief psychological interventions are effective in reducing depressive symptoms among adults with adjustment disorder. However, the in-person intervention yielded superior outcomes compared to telephonic engagement. These findings underscore the importance of considering individual preferences and accessibility when designing mental health interventions. It is recommended that mental health services integrate both telephonic and in-person modalities to cater to the diverse needs of individuals with adjustment disorder.