Table 2.
Post-CBT diagnostic outcomes reported in the included texts
| Author/year | Sample size on whom CBT recovery outcomes are based1 | % recovered from primary SoAD post-CBT | % recovered from other primary anxiety disorders post-CBT | Authors’ conclusions regarding association between primary diagnosis and likelihood of recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrett et al. (1996) | 53 | 62% | 73% | No significant association between primary diagnosis and recovery rates3 |
| Shortt et al. (2001) | 48 | 56% | 72% | No significant association between primary diagnosis and recovery rates3 |
| Wergeland et al. (2014, 2016)* | 179 | 27% | 42% | A primary SoAD or SAD diagnosis, compared with primary GAD, significantly reduced the odds of recovery post-CBT |
| Arendt et al. (2016)* | 101 | 29% | 65% | Participants with primary SoAD were significantly less likely to be recovered at post-treatment than those with any other primary anxiety diagnosis |
| Creswell et al. (2017)* | 622 | 50% | 45% | Significant association between primary GAD and post-treatment severity of primary diagnosis (reflecting greater improvement in severity of primary GAD compared with other primary anxiety diagnoses) |
| Villabo et al. (2018)* | 165 | 55% | 63% | Not reported |
| Suveg et al. (2018) | 92 | Not reported | Not reported | No significant difference in recovery rates by primary diagnoses, although co-morbid primary diagnoses were used, and co-morbidity was high (>90%)3 |
| Silk et al. (2018) | 90 | Not reported | Not reported | Pre-treatment diagnosis did not significantly predict or moderate recovery post-CBT3 |
| Thirlwall et al. (2013, 2017)* | 96 | 38% | 49% | Participants with primary GAD were significantly more likely to have recovered from their primary diagnosis at post-treatment than those with all other primary anxiety disorders |
| Stjerneklar et al. (2019)* | 32 | 21% | 50% | Not reported |
*Included in meta-analysis. 1Sample sizes listed here refer only to young people who met diagnostic criteria for primary anxiety diagnoses included in this review. 2Participants with sub-clinical primary diagnoses (n = 4) excluded. 3Statistical power to detect a between-group effect not reported.