CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03707158Updated Mar 27, 2025Results posted

Kids FACE FEARS Comparative Effectiveness Research

An interventional study of Therapist-Led CBT (telehealth, office-based, or hybrid) and Guided Online CBT in Child Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders and Anxiety, sponsored by Boston Medical Center. Completed at 8 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 7 Years to 18 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-03-27.

Sponsored by Boston Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
305
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
7 Years to 18 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The Kids FACE FEARS (Kids Formats of Anxiety Care Effectiveness study For Extending the Acceptability and Reach of Services) is a large-scale, streamlined, pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) evaluating Therapist-Led CBT (telehealth, office-based, or hybrid) vs. Guided Online Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for the treatment of elevated child and adolescent anxiety. Families will be recruited from pediatric health centers serving primarily racial/ethnic minority youth in urban, suburban, and semi-rural regions. Services will be offered in English and Spanish. Patient-centered outcomes will be evaluated across a one-year follow-up period. To compare the effectiveness of the two treatment comparators, investigators will analyze the reports of caregivers, youth, and therapists, as well as independent evaluators who are not informed of each child's treatment assignment. Primary outcomes will focus on family-rated anxiety severity and impairment, treatment responder and remission status rated by independent evaluators, family-perceived effectiveness, and treatment satisfaction. Secondary analyses will examine additional outcomes, predictors of varied outcomes across different subgroups of youth, and facilitators and barriers to treatment implementation. Caregivers, patients, providers, and other key stakeholders will be actively engaged throughout all aspects of the research.

Read the detailed description

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?
02

Conditions studied

  • Child Anxiety
  • Anxiety Disorders
  • Anxiety
  • Anxiety Symptoms
  • Anxiety, Mild to Moderate
  • Pediatric Anxiety Disorders

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
  • Online CBT
  • Telehealth
  • Anxiety
  • Child
  • Therapist-Led CBT
  • Pediatric Anxiety
  • Internet-Delivered CBT
  • iCBT
  • Telemental Health
  • Adolescent
  • Teen
  • Youth anxiety
  • Comparative Effectiveness
03

In context

Anxiety Disorders

4,868 studies on the registry are indexed under Anxiety Disorders; 1,390 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 305 is above the median of 80 across 4,174 interventional studies indexed under Anxiety Disorders.

Browse Anxiety Disorders studies →

Lead sponsor

Boston Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 314 studies on the registry; 34 are open to participants now.

Of its 34 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 28 (82%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
7 Years to 18 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

To maximize generalizability, inclusion criteria were wider and exclusion criteria were minimal compared to majority of previous RCTs of youth anxiety treatment

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  1. Children age 7-18 years at the time of screening
  2. Child has elevated anxiety as indicated by a T-score above 55 (greater than 0.5 SD (Standard Deviation) above the mean) on the PROMIS Item Bank v2.0 - Anxiety - Short Form 8a (child self-report or parent proxy report) in English or Spanish at the time of screening
  3. Child and caregiver(s) are fluent in English or Spanish
  4. Child's parent or legal guardian is age 16 or older
  5. If child taking SSRI/Pharmacotherapy for anxiety, must be on stable dose for greater than or equal to 8 weeks from the time of screening (self-reported, must be reported by parent if under the age of 18)
  6. Receiving care at sites participating in the study

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria

  1. Severity requiring higher level of care, as indicated by any of the following: (a) suicidal thoughts or behaviors (STP) with an active plan; (b) STB(s) requiring higher level of care in the past 6 months; (c) anxiety-related absence > 50% of school days over the past month (if summer, the last month of school enrolled); (d) substance use that required emergency services or inpatient/partial hospitalization within past 3 months; or (e) clinician-determination that child requires higher level of care.
  2. History of diagnosed autism spectrum disorder with severe challenges and needs for support (e.g., complete absence of verbal communication unrelated to anxiety), or intellectual disability with severe challenges or needs for support.
  3. Currently engaged in CBT or planning to continue a non-study psychotherapy for anxiety during the time of the study (self-reported, must be reported by parent if under the age of 18)
  4. Treatment participants not fluent in English or Spanish
  5. Child is ward of the state
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
305 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Guided Online CBT (with minimal therapist involvement)

    The online, multimedia suite of Cool Kids CBT web-based programs for youth anxiety is a supported, self-paced, self-administered online digital CBT anxiety management intervention, with adjunctive therapist phone support. Treatment content runs directly parallel to that included in the therapist-led Cool Kids suite of interventions. Depending on the age of the child, one of two developmentally tailored programs was assigned from the online suite of online Cool Kids interventions (i.e., Cool Kids Online for 7-12 year olds; Chilled Out for 13+ year olds)

    Behavioral: Guided Online CBT

  • Active comparator
    Therapist-Led CBT (telehealth, office-based, or hybrid delivered)

    The Cool Kids suite of therapist-led CBT-based programs for youth anxiety is a well-supported anxiety management intervention, delivered by a therapist across weekly sessions. The therapist-led cognitive-behavioral therapy treatment content runs directly parallel to that included in the Cool Kids online suite of interventions. Depending on the age of the child, one of two developmentally tailored programs was implemented from the suite of therapist-led Cool Kids interventions (i.e., Cool Kids for 7-12 year olds; Chilled for 13-18 year olds). For the present study, Therapist-led CBT could be implemented via telehealth or in-person (i.e., office-based), or as a hybrid format of both telehealth and office-based care. For each therapist-led CBT case, the specific format of care (i.e., telehealth, office-based, or hybrid) was determined via patient/family preferences, collaborative decision-making, hospital policies, and/or COVID-related mandates.

    Behavioral: Therapist-Led CBT (telehealth, office-based, or hybrid)

Interventions

  • BehavioralTherapist-Led CBT (telehealth, office-based, or hybrid)

    Participants receiving therapist-led CBT will participate in therapist-led (telehealth or office-based) CBT treatment for up to 20 weeks. Weekly therapist-led treatment sessions focus on psychoeducation about anxiety, thought challenging and cognitive restructuring, somatic management skills training, youth exposure to feared stimuli, family patterns associated with the maintenance of youth anxiety, and contingent reinforcement.

  • BehavioralGuided Online CBT

    Participants receiving guided online CBT will complete an online, self-paced, standardized and digitalized CBT program for up to 20 weeks with 8 modules, with adjunctive therapist phone support for supportive accountability. The self-administered treatment modules focus on psychoeducation about anxiety, thought challenging and cognitive restructuring, somatic management skills training, youth exposure to feared stimuli, family patterns associated with the maintenance of youth anxiety, and contingent reinforcement.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Promis Pediatric Short Form v. 2.0-Anxiety (Parent Proxy/Caregiver Report)

    This caregiver-report anxiety questionnaire is a publicly available measure that assesses youth fear, anxiety, misery, hyper-arousal, and somatic symptoms related to arousal. It also assesses behavioral fear avoidance. The form is available in English and Spanish and has excellent reliability and validity. The form includes 8 items and uses a scale of 1-5 (1=Never, 2=Almost never, 3= Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost always). The raw score is the sum of the points for each response (range: 8-40), with higher scores represents higher levels of anxiety. Raw scores are converted to T-scores (range: 33.5-88.3), with higher T-scores representing higher levels of anxiety. T-scores of 50 reflect the population mean with a standard deviation of 10. Scores of 55 indicated elevated anxiety and \>=60 reflecting clinical levels of anxiety. T scores are reported here and were subjected to analyses.

    Time frame: Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)

  2. Promis Pediatric Short Form v. 2.0-Anxiety (Pediatric/Youth Self-Report)

    This youth self-report anxiety questionnaire is a publicly available measure that assesses youth fear, anxiety, misery, hyper-arousal, and somatic symptoms related to arousal. It also assesses behavioral fear avoidance. The form is available in English and Spanish and has excellent reliability and validity. The form includes 8 items and uses a scale of 1-5 (1=Never, 2=Almost never, 3= Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost always). The raw score is the sum of the points for each response (range: 8-40), with higher scores represents higher levels of anxiety. Raw scores are converted to T-scores (range: 33.5-88.3), with higher T-scores representing higher levels of anxiety. T-scores of 50 reflect the population mean with a standard deviation of 10. Scores of 55 indicated elevated anxiety and \>=60 reflecting clinical levels of anxiety. T scores are reported here and were subjected to analyses.

    Time frame: Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)

  3. Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS), Caregiver Report

    The Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS) parent-report is a measure of caregiver perceptions of life interference and impairment associated with child anxiety. The CALIS has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, and assesses impairments in family, peer, academic, and extracurricular life domains. The CALIS parent-report 16 items administered to caregivers. All items, which relate to common activities (e.g. "being with friends outside of school" or "your career choice"), are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 = a great deal), with higher scores indicating higher anxiety life interference. Scores range from 0-64.

    Time frame: Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)

  4. Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS), Youth Self-Report

    The Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS) youth-report is a measure of youth self-reports of life interference and impairment associated with child anxiety. The CALIS has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, and assesses impairments in family, peer, academic, and extracurricular life domains. The CALIS youth self-report 9 items. All items, which relate to common activities (e.g. "being with friends outside of school" or "your career choice"), are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 = a great deal), with higher scores indicating higher anxiety life interference. Scores range from 0-36.

    Time frame: Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)

    To assess Caregivers Treatment Satisfaction, caregivers were administered a Satisfaction Scale that had them rate three items along 0-3 rating scales at at posttreatment: "Overall, how satisfied \[have you been/were you\] with the services that your family received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had a child with anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased \[have you been/were you\] with how this program has helped your child with anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These three items were averaged for each informant to generate a Caregiver Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater satisfaction).

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  2. Caregiver Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Caregivers, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)

    At posttreatment caregivers were asked to rate three items developed for the present trial along 0-3 rating scales: "Overall, how satisfied were you with the services that your family received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had a child with anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased were you with how this program helped your child with anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These items were averaged for each informant to generate a Caregiver Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater treatment satisfaction). For interpretation, mean scores \<2 were interpreted as "Dissatisfied." Here we present the % of "Dissatisfied" caregivers at Post, across conditions.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  3. Youth Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)

    To assess Youth Treatment Satisfaction, youth \> 8 years were administered a Satisfaction Scale that had them rate three items along 0-3 rating scales at posttreatment: "Overall, how satisfied \[have you been/were you\] with the services that you received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased \[have you been/were you\] with how this program has helped you with anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These three items were averaged for each informant to generate a Youth Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater satisfaction).

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  4. Youth Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Youth, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)

    At posttreatment, youth were asked to rate three items developed for the present trial along 0-3 rating scales: "Overall, how satisfied were you with the services that you received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased were you with how this program helped your anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These items were averaged for each informant to generate a Youth Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater treatment satisfaction). For interpretation, mean scores \<2 were interpreted as "Dissatisfied." Here we present the % of "Dissatisfied" youth at Post, across conditions.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  5. Caregiver-Perceived Effectiveness

    To assess Caregiver-Perceived Effectiveness, caregivers were asked on a 7-point scale "How effective do you think the program \[has been/was\] in treating your child's anxiety?" \[0=very ineffective; 3=somewhat effective; 6=very effective\]. Range of possible scores: 0-42; higher scores reflect greater perceived effectiveness.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  6. Rate of Treatment Responders (% of Children Whose Posttreatment PARS Score Was at Least 35% Less Than Their Baseline PARS Score)

    "Treatment Responder" defined as score reduction of at least 35% on the Pediatric Rating Scale (PARS). The PARS is a well-established clinician-rated instrument for assessing the frequency and severity of anxiety symptoms. Six global items are summed to generate a PARS Total score. The PARS has shown strong psychometric properties. PARS Total Score reductions of 35% or more are empirically defined as reflecting "Treatment Response". For the present study, PARS interviews were conducted by independent evaluators masked to treatment condition. Values here reflect the % of "Treatment Responders" at post, across conditions

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  7. Caregiver Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Caregiver Completed Assigned Homework)

    Therapists completed weekly logs reporting whether study families on their caseloads completed the homework assigned in their previous session or support call. Homework completion reflects the percent of weeks across the trial in which all assigned homework was completed by caregiver, accounting for nesting and for covariates.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  8. Youth Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Youth Completed Assigned Homework)

    Therapists completed weekly logs reporting whether study families on their caseloads completed the homework assigned in their previous session or support call. Homework completion reflects the percent of weeks across the trial in which all assigned homework was completed by child/teen, accounting for nesting and for covariates.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  9. Treatment Completion (% of Children Who Completed Their Treatment Program)

    Therapists completed weekly logs reporting whether study families on their caseloads attended their scheduled sessions. Treatment Completion was defined for Therapist-Led CBT as attending 10 treatment sessions, and for Guided Online CBT Care as attending 4 support calls. For Guided Online CBT families, administrative backend data was also collected from the central server to further assess user/usage analytics. Values reflect % of completers within each condition.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  10. Treatment Comprehension Difficulties (Caregiver Report)

    Caregivers were asked at Posttreatment "How hard has the intervention been for \[your family/your child\] and you to understand?" \[0=never hard; 3=sometimes hard; 6=very hard\]. This item was developed for the present study (range: 0-6), with higher scores reflecting greater comprehension difficulties.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  11. Difficulty Making Time for Treatment (Caregiver Report)

    To assess Difficulties Making Time for Treatment caregivers were asked at at Posttreatment "How hard has it been for \[your family/your child\] to \[make your schedule work for treatment sessions/find time to work on and complete the computer-based treatment modules online\]?" \[0=never a problem; 3=sometimes a problem; 6=often a problem\]. This item was developed for the present study (range: 0-6), with higher scores reflecting greater difficulties making time for treatment.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

  12. Treatment Discomfort (Caregiver Report)

    Caregivers were asked at Posttreatment "How comfortable has your \[family/child\] felt when \[attending treatment sessions/completing the computer-based treatment modules online\]?" \[0=very comfortable; 3=sometimes comfortable; 6=very uncomfortable\]. This item was developed for the present study (range: 0-6), with higher scores reflecting greater treatment discomfort.

    Time frame: Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)

07

Results

Posted Mar 27, 2025

Participant flow

Baseline
Participant flow — Baseline
MilestoneGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Started156149
Completed156149
Not completed00
Midtreatment
Participant flow — Midtreatment
MilestoneGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Started156149
Completed112123
Not completed4426
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up167
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject2819
Posttreatment
Participant flow — Posttreatment
MilestoneGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Started112123
Completed112118
Not completed05
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up05
Follow-up
Participant flow — Follow-up
MilestoneGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Started112118
Completed8094
Not completed3224
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up1918
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject136

Outcome measures

PrimaryPromis Pediatric Short Form v. 2.0-Anxiety (Parent Proxy/Caregiver Report)

This caregiver-report anxiety questionnaire is a publicly available measure that assesses youth fear, anxiety, misery, hyper-arousal, and somatic symptoms related to arousal. It also assesses behavioral fear avoidance. The form is available in English and Spanish and has excellent reliability and validity. The form includes 8 items and uses a scale of 1-5 (1=Never, 2=Almost never, 3= Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost always). The raw score is the sum of the points for each response (range: 8-40), with higher scores represents higher levels of anxiety. Raw scores are converted to T-scores (range: 33.5-88.3), with higher T-scores representing higher levels of anxiety. T-scores of 50 reflect the population mean with a standard deviation of 10. Scores of 55 indicated elevated anxiety and \>=60 reflecting clinical levels of anxiety. T scores are reported here and were subjected to analyses.

Time frame:
Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · T-Score
Promis Pediatric Short Form v. 2.0-Anxiety (Parent Proxy/Caregiver Report)
T-ScoreGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Baseline65.7 ± 8.366.0 ± 8.3
Midtreatment59.2 ± 9.459.1 ± 9.4
Posttreatment57.9 ± 9.757.7 ± 9.7
Follow-up56.2 ± 10.255.9 ± 10.2
PrimaryPromis Pediatric Short Form v. 2.0-Anxiety (Pediatric/Youth Self-Report)

This youth self-report anxiety questionnaire is a publicly available measure that assesses youth fear, anxiety, misery, hyper-arousal, and somatic symptoms related to arousal. It also assesses behavioral fear avoidance. The form is available in English and Spanish and has excellent reliability and validity. The form includes 8 items and uses a scale of 1-5 (1=Never, 2=Almost never, 3= Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost always). The raw score is the sum of the points for each response (range: 8-40), with higher scores represents higher levels of anxiety. Raw scores are converted to T-scores (range: 33.5-88.3), with higher T-scores representing higher levels of anxiety. T-scores of 50 reflect the population mean with a standard deviation of 10. Scores of 55 indicated elevated anxiety and \>=60 reflecting clinical levels of anxiety. T scores are reported here and were subjected to analyses.

Time frame:
Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · T scores
Promis Pediatric Short Form v. 2.0-Anxiety (Pediatric/Youth Self-Report)
T scoresGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Baseline61.4 ± 9.561.2 ± 9.5
Midtreatment55.6 ± 9.656.4 ± 9.6
Posttreatment54.7 ± 9.454.4 ± 9.4
Follow-up54.4 ± 10.054.2 ± 10.0
PrimaryChild Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS), Caregiver Report

The Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS) parent-report is a measure of caregiver perceptions of life interference and impairment associated with child anxiety. The CALIS has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, and assesses impairments in family, peer, academic, and extracurricular life domains. The CALIS parent-report 16 items administered to caregivers. All items, which relate to common activities (e.g. "being with friends outside of school" or "your career choice"), are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 = a great deal), with higher scores indicating higher anxiety life interference. Scores range from 0-64.

Time frame:
Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS), Caregiver Report
score on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Baseline26.3 ± 12.226.8 ± 12.2
Midtreatment20.2 ± 12.120.5 ± 12.1
Posttreatment18.9 ± 12.19.3 ± 12.2
Follow-up17.3 ± 12.217.6 ± 12.2
PrimaryChild Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS), Youth Self-Report

The Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS) youth-report is a measure of youth self-reports of life interference and impairment associated with child anxiety. The CALIS has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, and assesses impairments in family, peer, academic, and extracurricular life domains. The CALIS youth self-report 9 items. All items, which relate to common activities (e.g. "being with friends outside of school" or "your career choice"), are rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 4 = a great deal), with higher scores indicating higher anxiety life interference. Scores range from 0-36.

Time frame:
Baseline, Midtreatment (on average, 8 weeks), Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks), Follow-up (on average, 55 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (CALIS), Youth Self-Report
score on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Baseline13.1 ± 7.513.4 ± 7.5
Midtreatment10.6 ± 7.111.1 ± 7.1
Posttreatment10.6 ± 7.510.1 ± 7.5
Follow-up9.5 ± 8.110.0 ± 8.1
SecondaryCaregiver Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)

To assess Caregivers Treatment Satisfaction, caregivers were administered a Satisfaction Scale that had them rate three items along 0-3 rating scales at at posttreatment: "Overall, how satisfied \[have you been/were you\] with the services that your family received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had a child with anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased \[have you been/were you\] with how this program has helped your child with anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These three items were averaged for each informant to generate a Caregiver Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater satisfaction).

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)
score on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Caregiver Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)2.2 ± 0.72.7 ± 0.7
SecondaryCaregiver Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Caregivers, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)

At posttreatment caregivers were asked to rate three items developed for the present trial along 0-3 rating scales: "Overall, how satisfied were you with the services that your family received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had a child with anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased were you with how this program helped your child with anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These items were averaged for each informant to generate a Caregiver Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater treatment satisfaction). For interpretation, mean scores \<2 were interpreted as "Dissatisfied." Here we present the % of "Dissatisfied" caregivers at Post, across conditions.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of caregivers
Caregiver Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Caregivers, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)
percentage of caregiversGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Caregiver Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Caregivers, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)23.96.8
SecondaryYouth Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)

To assess Youth Treatment Satisfaction, youth \> 8 years were administered a Satisfaction Scale that had them rate three items along 0-3 rating scales at posttreatment: "Overall, how satisfied \[have you been/were you\] with the services that you received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased \[have you been/were you\] with how this program has helped you with anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These three items were averaged for each informant to generate a Youth Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater satisfaction).

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Youth Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)
score on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Youth Treatment Satisfaction (Continuously Scored)2.1 ± .82.4 ± .8
SecondaryYouth Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Youth, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)

At posttreatment, youth were asked to rate three items developed for the present trial along 0-3 rating scales: "Overall, how satisfied were you with the services that you received?" \[0=quite dissatisfied; 3=very satisfied\]; "Would you recommend this program to a friend if they had anxiety?" \[0=no, definitely not; 3=yes, definitely\]; and "How pleased were you with how this program helped your anxiety" \[0=quite displeased; 3=very pleased\]. These items were averaged for each informant to generate a Youth Total Satisfaction Score (range: 0-3, higher scores reflect greater treatment satisfaction). For interpretation, mean scores \<2 were interpreted as "Dissatisfied." Here we present the % of "Dissatisfied" youth at Post, across conditions.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of youth
Youth Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Youth, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)
percentage of youthGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Youth Treatment Dissatisfaction (% of "Dissatisfied" Youth, Based on Dichotomous Coding of Dissatisfaction)33.319.9
SecondaryCaregiver-Perceived Effectiveness

To assess Caregiver-Perceived Effectiveness, caregivers were asked on a 7-point scale "How effective do you think the program \[has been/was\] in treating your child's anxiety?" \[0=very ineffective; 3=somewhat effective; 6=very effective\]. Range of possible scores: 0-42; higher scores reflect greater perceived effectiveness.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Caregiver-Perceived Effectiveness
score on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Caregiver-Perceived Effectiveness2.9 ± 1.84.2 ± 1.8
SecondaryRate of Treatment Responders (% of Children Whose Posttreatment PARS Score Was at Least 35% Less Than Their Baseline PARS Score)

"Treatment Responder" defined as score reduction of at least 35% on the Pediatric Rating Scale (PARS). The PARS is a well-established clinician-rated instrument for assessing the frequency and severity of anxiety symptoms. Six global items are summed to generate a PARS Total score. The PARS has shown strong psychometric properties. PARS Total Score reductions of 35% or more are empirically defined as reflecting "Treatment Response". For the present study, PARS interviews were conducted by independent evaluators masked to treatment condition. Values here reflect the % of "Treatment Responders" at post, across conditions

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of children
Rate of Treatment Responders (% of Children Whose Posttreatment PARS Score Was at Least 35% Less Than Their Baseline PARS Score)
percentage of childrenGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Rate of Treatment Responders (% of Children Whose Posttreatment PARS Score Was at Least 35% Less Than Their Baseline PARS Score)48.755.4
SecondaryCaregiver Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Caregiver Completed Assigned Homework)

Therapists completed weekly logs reporting whether study families on their caseloads completed the homework assigned in their previous session or support call. Homework completion reflects the percent of weeks across the trial in which all assigned homework was completed by caregiver, accounting for nesting and for covariates.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of trial weeks
Caregiver Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Caregiver Completed Assigned Homework)
percentage of trial weeksGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Caregiver Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Caregiver Completed Assigned Homework)53.170.7
SecondaryYouth Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Youth Completed Assigned Homework)

Therapists completed weekly logs reporting whether study families on their caseloads completed the homework assigned in their previous session or support call. Homework completion reflects the percent of weeks across the trial in which all assigned homework was completed by child/teen, accounting for nesting and for covariates.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of trial weeks
Youth Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Youth Completed Assigned Homework)
percentage of trial weeksGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Youth Homework Engagement (% of Weeks Youth Completed Assigned Homework)50.861.9
SecondaryTreatment Completion (% of Children Who Completed Their Treatment Program)

Therapists completed weekly logs reporting whether study families on their caseloads attended their scheduled sessions. Treatment Completion was defined for Therapist-Led CBT as attending 10 treatment sessions, and for Guided Online CBT Care as attending 4 support calls. For Guided Online CBT families, administrative backend data was also collected from the central server to further assess user/usage analytics. Values reflect % of completers within each condition.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of children
Treatment Completion (% of Children Who Completed Their Treatment Program)
percentage of childrenGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Treatment Completion (% of Children Who Completed Their Treatment Program)53.246.3
SecondaryTreatment Comprehension Difficulties (Caregiver Report)

Caregivers were asked at Posttreatment "How hard has the intervention been for \[your family/your child\] and you to understand?" \[0=never hard; 3=sometimes hard; 6=very hard\]. This item was developed for the present study (range: 0-6), with higher scores reflecting greater comprehension difficulties.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Treatment Comprehension Difficulties (Caregiver Report)
units on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Treatment Comprehension Difficulties (Caregiver Report)1.67 ± 1.51.01 ± 1.1
SecondaryDifficulty Making Time for Treatment (Caregiver Report)

To assess Difficulties Making Time for Treatment caregivers were asked at at Posttreatment "How hard has it been for \[your family/your child\] to \[make your schedule work for treatment sessions/find time to work on and complete the computer-based treatment modules online\]?" \[0=never a problem; 3=sometimes a problem; 6=often a problem\]. This item was developed for the present study (range: 0-6), with higher scores reflecting greater difficulties making time for treatment.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Difficulty Making Time for Treatment (Caregiver Report)
units on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Difficulty Making Time for Treatment (Caregiver Report)3.17 ± 2.12.14 ± 1.8
SecondaryTreatment Discomfort (Caregiver Report)

Caregivers were asked at Posttreatment "How comfortable has your \[family/child\] felt when \[attending treatment sessions/completing the computer-based treatment modules online\]?" \[0=very comfortable; 3=sometimes comfortable; 6=very uncomfortable\]. This item was developed for the present study (range: 0-6), with higher scores reflecting greater treatment discomfort.

Time frame:
Posttreatment (on average, 19 weeks)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Treatment Discomfort (Caregiver Report)
units on a scaleGuided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)
Treatment Discomfort (Caregiver Report)2.81 ± 2.22.86 ± 2.6

Adverse events

Collected over 55 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)0/156 (0%)0/156 (0%)0/156 (0%)
Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)0/149 (0%)0/149 (0%)0/149 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
Mean11.8 ± 2.812.0 ± 2.811.9 ± 2.8
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
Mean42.65 ± 6.942.07 ± 6.542.37 ± 6.7
Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Participants)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
7-12 years old10499203
13-18 years old5250102
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
Cis Male5256108
Cis Female10285187
Trans or NonBinary2810
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
Female133125258
Male131326
Not Reported101121
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
Hispanic/Latine7170141
Hispanic/Latine & Asian314
Hispanic/Latine & American Indian/Alaskan Native213
Non-Hispanic White5050100
Black or African American14822
Black & Hispanic/Latine459
Black & American Indian/Alaskan Native011
Black & Hispanic/Latine & American Indian/Alaskan Native011
Black & Asian011
Black & Middle Eastern/North African011
Asian8715
Asian & Middle Eastern/North African011
American Indian/Alaskan Native101
American Indian/Alaskan Native & Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander011
Middle Eastern or North African (MENA)101
Not Reported213
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
United States156149305
Caregiver Nativity
Caregiver Nativity(Participants)Guided Online CBT (With Minimal Therapist Involvement)Therapist-Led CBT (Telehealth, Office-based, or Hybrid Delivered)Total
Caregiver U.S. Born9293185
Caregiver Foreign Born6456120

3 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

8 sites
  • Nicklaus Children's Hospital
    Miami, Florida 33155, United States
  • Florida International University
    Miami, Florida 33199, United States
  • Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
    Baltimore, Maryland 21224, United States
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
    Boston, Massachusetts 02114, United States
  • Boston Medical Center
    Boston, Massachusetts 02118, United States
  • South Boston Community Health Center
    Boston, Massachusetts 02127, United States
  • Harborview Medical Center
    Seattle, Washington 98104, United States
  • Seattle Children's Hospital
    Seattle, Washington 98105, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Dec 22, 2020

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — The Patient-Centered Outcomes Data Repository will be used to facilitate responsible sharing of principal data from the trial for appropriate secondary use.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Csr, Analytic code

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 27, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03707158
Lead sponsor
Boston Medical Center
Collaborators
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, South Boston Community Health Center, Johns Hopkins University, Nicklaus Children's Hospital f/k/a Miami Children's Hospital, Boston University, Florida International University, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 16, 2018
Start date
Oct 8, 2019
Primary completion
Apr 9, 2023
Completion
Jun 6, 2024
Results posted
Mar 27, 2025
Last update
Mar 27, 2025

Study contacts

Jonathan S Comer, PhD
principal investigator · Florida International University
Donna B Pincus, PhD
principal investigator · Boston University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion