Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Response to anxiety treatment before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic

  • David H. Rosmarin ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    drosmarin@mclean.harvard.edu

    Affiliations McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Belmont, MA, United States of America, Center for Anxiety, New York, NY, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Steven Pirutinsky

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Center for Anxiety, New York, NY, United States of America, Touro College, Graduate School of Social Work, New York, NY, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic yielded a substantial increase in worldwide prevalence and severity of anxiety, but less is known about effects on anxiety treatment.

Objective

We evaluated effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on responses to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for anxiety, in a clinically heterogeneous sample of patients.

Methods

A sample of 764 outpatients were separated into four groups: (1) Pre-pandemic (start date on or prior to 12/31/2019), (2) Pandemic-Onset (start date from 01/01/2020 to 03/31/2020), (3) During-Pandemic (start date from 04/01/2020 through 12/31/2020), and (4) Post-Pandemic (start date on or after 01/01/2021). We subsequently compared treatment trajectories and effects within and between these groups over 5621 total time points (mean of 7.38 measurements per patient).

Results

Overall, patients presented with moderate levels of anxiety (M = 13.25, 95%CI: 12.87, 13.62), which rapidly decreased for 25 days (M = 9.46, 95%CI: 9.09, 9.83), and thereafter slowly declined into the mild symptom range over the remainder of the study period (M = 7.36, 95%CI: 6.81, 7.91), representing clinically as well as statistically significant change. A series of conditional multilevel regression models indicated that there were no substantive differences between groups, and no increase in anxiety during the acute pandemic phase.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that responses to treatment for anxiety were equivalent before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Among patients who were in treatment prior to the pandemic, we failed to detect an increase in anxiety during the pandemic’s acute phase (March 20th, 2020 through July 1st, 2020).

Citation: Rosmarin DH, Pirutinsky S (2024) Response to anxiety treatment before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0296949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296949

Editor: Mohammad Farris Iman Leong Bin Abdullah, USM Advanced Medical and Dental Institute: Universiti Sains Malaysia Institut Perubatan dan Pengigian Termaju, MALAYSIA

Received: June 23, 2023; Accepted: December 20, 2023; Published: March 13, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Rosmarin, Pirutinsky. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are publicly available from OSF at https://osf.io/yusdk/.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

It is well established that the COVID-19 pandemic led to adverse effects on mental health for the population as a whole [1–5], and vulnerable subgroups in particular [6, 7]. Anxiety demonstrably increased substantially from the pandemic’s onset in early 2020 [8–10], through the first availability of vaccinations in early 2021 (dubbed by some as the “light at the end of the tunnel”) [11]. To quantify these trends: One large meta-analytic study with over two million adults found that 35% had significant anxiety during the pandemic [2], and the World Health Organization estimated a 25% increase overall [12, 13]. These effects are not surprising given that intolerance of uncertainty–which was rampant during the pandemic given high levels of perceived threat–is a key factor in the development and severity of anxiety [14, 15].

Less is known about the effects of the pandemic on treatment for anxiety. On the one hand, there is reason to believe that COVID-19 was detrimental to anxiety treatment. During 2020, several helpful commentaries and case reports were rapidly published to provide clinicians with specific strategies to support patients with pre-existing anxiety by bolstering treatment delivery [16, 17]. In retrospect, these efforts were well-warranted since it is now known that a history of mental health treatment prior to the pandemic predicted greater likelihood of having symptoms meeting criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder during the pandemic [18]. On the other hand, one study found that individuals who received Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder prior to the pandemic, benefited from enduring effects [19]. Similarly, in another study of patients with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder, the trajectory and outcomes of intensive CBT was similar among those receiving treatment prior to vs. during the pandemic [20]. These findings are encouraging, and may suggest that the acquisition of cognitive and behavioral skills is a harbinger of better mental health, even in the context of uniquely high worldwide stress. However, further research in more clinically diverse samples is needed to assess whether CBT for anxiety was equally effective for those who entered treatment during the pandemic, compared to before, or after.

We therefore evaluated responses to anxiety treatment before, during, and after the pandemic, in a clinically heterogeneous sample of patients presenting to a naturalistic outpatient setting. We separated patients into four groups, in accordance with a COVID-19 pandemic timeline proposed by the Yale School of Medicine [21]: (1) Pre-pandemic: Those who entered and completed treatment before the start of the pandemic (start date on or prior to 12/31/2019); (2) Pandemic-Onset: Those who were in treatment during the onset of the pandemic (start date from 01/01/2020 to 03/31/2020); (3) During-Pandemic: Those who commenced treatment after the onset of the pandemic (start date from 04/01/2020 through 12/31/2020); and (4) Post-Pandemic: Those who entered treatment once vaccines started to become available (start date after 01/01/2021). Subsequently, we assessed and compared treatment trajectories and effects within and between these groups. We also examined whether patients in treatment during the pandemic experienced any specific changes in anxiety during the initial acute phase of COVID-19 (March 20th 2020 through July 1st 2020). We hypothesized that patients presenting to treatment prior to (group 1) and after the pandemic (group 4) would benefit more from treatment than those who received treatment during the pandemic’s onset or prior to the availability of vaccines (groups 2 and 3). We further hypothesized that anxiety would worsen during the initial acute phase of the pandemic.

Materials and methods

Procedures & participants

Data was collected from adult patients presenting to the offices of Center for Anxiety, a multisite outpatient clinic in the northeastern United States between 10/1/2019 and 3/1/2021. The study was approved by the Touro University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, protocol # IRB1-2023-003. At treatment intake, patients provided written informed consent to have data from their clinical questionnaires and medical records used in research. Medical record data was assessed retrospectively and was fully de-identified prior to access by the study team. At intake and at each treatment session, patients were asked to complete self-report measures of anxiety using Psych-Surveys™ software. At intake, patients also received a general psychosocial interview, as well as the Miniature International Neuropsychiatric Interview [22]. Inclusion criteria for the current study included age 18 years or older, and completion of anxiety measure at intake plus at least three additional times within the first 100 days treatment. We included only measurements that took place within the first 100 days of treatment, since measurements post 100 days were highly variable and sparse; this resulted in the exclusion of only 0.3% of patients. Our final sample included 764 patients, with anxiety assessed at 5621 total time points, representing a mean average 7.38 anxiety measurements per patient. Group sizes were as follows: Pre-pandemic (n = 221), (2) Pandemic-Onset (n = 42), (3) During-Pandemic (n = 104), (4) Post-Pandemic (n = 384).

All patients were provided with Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and/or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) as per usual clinic procedures. While no standardized treatment protocols were used given the naturalistic setting, a chart review revealed that a variety of specific cognitive and dialectical behavior therapy techniques were utilized including psychoeducation, monitoring of symptoms/target behaviors (e.g., thought records, diary cards), exposure, response prevention, behavioral activation, identifying and restructuring cognitive distortions, as well as mindfulness and acceptance. Therapists included doctoral level trainees as well as master’s level clinicians, all of whom received weekly supervision and additional consultation as needed throughout treatment by a licensed provider. This study was approved by the Touro University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects.

Measures

Demographic information was collected from electronic health records, and obtained from patients using a combination of self-report items and a semi-structured interview at intake.

Diagnoses were assessed with Miniature International Neuropsychiatric Interview [22], and conferred by supervising licensed doctoral-level staff.

Levels of anxiety were assessed at intake and each subsequent session using the GAD-7, a seven-item self-report measure of generalized anxiety symptoms that is used to assess for anxiety in a variety of clinical settings [23]. The scale yields a single total score between 0 and 21 and can be interpreted using four validated levels of anxiety severity: “Minimal” (0–4) “Mild” (5–9); “Moderate” (10–14) and “Severe” (15–21) [23].

Statistical analyses

Given unequal group sizes, we modeled changes in anxiety over the course of treatment using multilevel growth curve models [24], which are widely used in psychotherapy research since they are robust, allow for missing data, handle designs with varying measurement times, and control for unmeasured between-subject differences. Models were estimated with the lme4 library [25] using restricted maximum likelihood estimation, and coefficients tested with the lmerTest library [26] in the R programming language [27]. Non-linear terms were constructed using Orthogonal Polynomials estimated by the poly function in the stats package [27], plots were created using the sjPlot library [28]. Descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses were calculated in SPSS 23.

Power analyses for longitudinal multilevel regression models require complex simulations with extensive assumptions to provide accurate estimates of power [29]. Given the complex nature of our analyses, we were unable to develop reasonable assumptions. However, previous simulation studies indicate that multilevel modeling is highly robust and yields unbiased estimates of fixed effects even in small samples (e.g., as many as 10 groups with as few as five units each [30], and that these models generally require few cases to have sufficient power (e.g., as many as 50 groups with as few as five observations each [31]). Following these heuristics, we estimated that the current sample was likely to capture even small effects.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Demographic and clinical characteristics of each group within the sample are presented in Table 1. Results indicated that groups did not differ significantly in terms of any demographic variables. Subsequent analyses therefore did not include demographic covariates. Similarly, or diagnoses and levels of anxiety at intake were also statistically equivalent between groups. Groups also had equivalent numbers of weekly sessions, suggesting that treatment was not more or less intensive for any particular group.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Demographic & clinical characteristics of the sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296949.t001

Treatment effects

Examination of raw treatment trajectories (Fig 1) suggested that changes in anxiety over the course of treatment was best described by a cubic pattern, with an initial period of rapid decline lasting roughly 25 days followed by a longer period of slower improvement that slowly trailed off over roughly 75 days. Consistent with these descriptive data and previous research [32] results indicated that a model allowing for individual random variation in the linear and non-linear rates of change was the best fit for our data (Table 2). Specifically, cubic models fit significantly better than simpler linear models (∆AIC = -10.99, ∆BIC = -5.36, χ2(1) = 12.99, p = .0003), quadratic models (∆AIC = -10.99, ∆BIC = -5.36, χ2(1) = 12.99, p = .0003) and log-linear models (∆AIC = -10.99, ∆BIC = -5.36, χ2(1) = 12.99, p = .0003). Coefficients for a baseline cubic treatment model are presented in Table 3. These indicate that on average, patients presented with moderate levels of anxiety (M = 13.25, 95%CI: 12.87, 13.62), which rapidly decreased for 25 days (M = 9.46, 95%CI: 9.09, 9.83), and thereafter slowly declined into the mild symptom range over the remainder of the study period (M = 7.36, 95%CI: 6.81, 7.91). These results represent both clinically as well as statistically significant change in the sample as a whole.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Changes in anxiety before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296949.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Multilevel regression models of anxiety over the course of clinical treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296949.t002

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Unconditional multilevel regression models (treatment effects).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296949.t003

Pandemic effects

Building upon the above baseline model, we estimated a series of conditional multilevel regression models to assess if the course of anxiety differed between the above-mentioned four groups in our sample: (1) Pre-pandemic, (2) Pandemic-Onset, (3) During-Pandemic, (4) Post-Pandemic. Model comparisons are reported in Table 3 and indicate that there were no substantive differences between these groups: All entered treatment with roughly the same (moderate) levels of anxiety, all progressed through treatment in a similar cubic pattern, and all terminated with similar (mild) levels of anxiety. These results suggest that responses to psychotherapy for anxiety were equivalent before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, among patients who were in treatment at the start of the pandemic (groups 2 and 3), an additional model assessing whether levels of anxiety increased during the initial acute phase of COVID-19 (March 20th 2020 through July 1st 2020) was similarly non-significant, suggesting that existing patients did not experience increased in anxiety over that time (Table 2, Model M6).

Discussion

In this study, we examined effects and trajectories of anxiety treatment within a large and clinically diverse sample of patients presenting prior to, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrary to our expectations, the course of anxiety and its treatment effects were equivalent among patients, irrespective of when they entered treatment. That is, irrespective of when patients commenced or terminated treatment, they had roughly the same levels of anxiety at the start of treatment, they then experienced a cubic pattern of anxiety change characterized by an initial period of rapid decline lasting roughly 25 days, followed by a longer period of slower improvement that slowly trailed off over roughly 75 days, and treatment resulted in similar levels of anxiety 100 days after patients’ initial sessions. These results are consistent with a large body of literature highlighting the efficacy and effectiveness of CBT for anxiety-related concerns (e.g., [33–35]), which includes several studies demonstrating large, stable, and enduring effects [36–38]. Our findings support and extend this work by suggesting that treatments for anxiety are effective, even in the context of uniquely heightened periods of prolonged stress. While treatment was not standardized, the naturalistic setting of our study has ecological validity and highlights the real-world value of CBT and DBT, even when delivered under unusual conditions.

Of potentially even greater significance, we found that pre-pandemic patients did not experience a discernable increase in anxiety during the initial acute phase of COVID-19. As noted above, this period of time was marked by significant mental distress [8–10] due to intense uncertainty, strain, and social isolation. The initiation of the COVID-19 pandemic was likely of particular concern for anxiety treatment-seekers, who experienced the additional stress of shifting to 100% telehealth in delivering their treatment, over the span of just a few weeks. Our findings optimistically suggests that the acquisition of psychosocial skills is a key predictor of mental health, wellbeing, and resilience–those who acquire such skills can benefit, even when facing to significant life stressors. Our findings also suggests that, ironically, those who experienced anxiety prior to the pandemic and took the opportunity to enter treatment, may have been better off than others who had never experienced significant anxiety before the pandemic. In this regard, previous experience of anxiety leading to treatment may reduce future susceptibility to symptoms in the context of increased stress.

Our study has several limitations that should be noted. First, our sample was demographically and clinically diverse, but highly educated overall and geographically specific to the northeastern United States. Treatment effects over the course of the pandemic might have been different within other regions, countries, or populations. Second, while multilevel modeling is robust to differences in group size, the pandemic-onset group was substantially smaller than the others. While this likely represents a smaller date range for group 3, it may also reflect that timing of psychosocial challenges and limited availability of in-person services can preclude entry into treatment. Our results should therefore not be construed to represent or reflect aggregate effects of stressors on anxiety overall, rather effects of the pandemic on the course and effects of symptoms among treatment-seekers. Finally, our study is limited to an analysis of anxiety, and treatment effects on other symptoms such as depression and substance abuse–both of which increased substantially during the pandemic [39, 40]–might have varied over the course of 2020.

In sum, our results indicate that response to anxiety treatment was strikingly similar for patients presenting before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that acquisition of skills to cope with anxiety is protective even in the context of a global crisis.

References

  1. 1. Amsalem D, Dixon LB, Neria Y. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak and Mental Health: Current Risks and Recommended Actions. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(1):9–10. pmid:32579160
  2. 2. Delpino FM, da Silva CN, Jerônimo JS, Mulling ES, da Cunha LL, Weymar MK, et al. Prevalence of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis of over 2 million people. J Affect Disord. 2022;318:272–282. pmid:36096370
  3. 3. Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:55–64. pmid:32799105
  4. 4. Kumar A, Nayar KR. COVID 19 and its mental health consequences. J Ment Health. 2021;30(1):1–2. pmid:32339041
  5. 5. Office of the Surgeon General (OSG). Protecting Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services; 2021.
    • 6. Thomeer MB, Moody MD, Yahirun J. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Mental Health and Mental Health Care During The COVID-19 Pandemic. J Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. 2023;10(2):961–976. pmid:35318615
    • 7. Muller AE, Hafstad EV, Himmels JPW, Smedslund G, Flottorp S, Stensland SØ, et al. The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2020;293:113441. pmid:32898840
    • 8. Hyland P, Shevlin M, McBride O, Murphy J, Karatzias T, Bentall RP, et al. Anxiety and depression in the Republic of Ireland during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2020;142(3):249–256. pmid:32716520
    • 9. Pashazadeh Kan F, Raoofi S, Rafiei S, Khani S, Hosseinifard H, Tajik F, et al. A systematic review of the prevalence of anxiety among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2021;293:391–398. pmid:34246947
    • 10. Mann FD, Krueger RF, Vohs KD. Personal economic anxiety in response to COVID-19. Pers Individ Dif. 2020;167:110233. pmid:32834283
    • 11. Chu H, Liu S. Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine. Soc Sci Med. 2021;286:114315. pmid:34419632
    • 12. World Health Organization [Internet]. COVID-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide. [cited June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide
    • 13. Santomauro DF, Mantilla Herrera AM, Shadid J, Zheng P, Ashbaugh C, Pigott D, et al. Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet. 2021;398(10312):1700–1712. pmid:34634250
    • 14. Chen S, Yao N, Qian M. The influence of uncertainty and intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2018;61:60–65. pmid:29909250
    • 15. Carleton RN, Mulvogue MK, Thibodeau MA, McCabe RE, Antony MM, Asmundson GJG. Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression. J Anxiety Disord. 2012;26(3):468–479. pmid:22366534
    • 16. Shafran R, Rachman S, Whittal M, Radomsky A, Coughtrey A. Fear and Anxiety in COVID-19: Preexisting Anxiety Disorders. Cogn Behav Pract. 2021;28(4):459–467. pmid:33897249
    • 17. Satre DD, Iturralde E, Ghadiali M, Young-Wolff KC, Campbell CI, Leibowitz AS, et al. Treatment for Anxiety and Substance Use Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Strategies. J Addict Med. 2020;14(6):e293–e296. pmid:33156267
    • 18. Turna J, Zhang J, Lamberti N, Patterson B, Simpson W, Francisco AP, et al. Anxiety, depression and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a cross-sectional survey. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;137:96–103. pmid:33667763
    • 19. Samantaray N, Kar N, Mishra SR. A follow-up study on treatment effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy on social anxiety disorder: Impact of COVID-19 fear during post-lockdown period. Psychiatry Res. 2022;310:114439. pmid:35180611
    • 20. Pinciotti CM, Bulkes NZ, Horvath G, Riemann BC. Efficacy of intensive CBT telehealth for obsessive-compulsive disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Obsessive Compuls Relat Disord. 2022;32:100705. pmid:34956827
    • 21. Patella K. Our Pandemic Year—A COVID-19 Timeline. Yale Medicine [Internet]. 2021 Mar 9. [cited June 16, 2023]. Available from: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-timeline
    • 22. Sheehan DV, Sheehan KH, Shytle RD, Janavs J, Bannon Y, Rogers JE, et al. Reliability and Validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID). J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(03):313–326. pmid:20331933
    • 23. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092. pmid:16717171
    • 24. Singer JD, Willett JB. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. 1st ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001
      • 25. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Soft. 2015;67(1).
      • 26. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J Stat Soft. 2017;82(13).
      • 27. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Accessed from: https://www.R-project.org/.
        • 28. Lüdecke D (2023). sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. R package version 2.8.14, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot.
        • 29. Hoffman L, Rovine MJ. Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behav Res. 2007;39(1):101–117. pmid:17552476
        • 30. Mass CJ, Hox JJ. The consequences of estimation in the presence of nonindependence: An example from multilevel modeling. Qual Quant. 2005;39(5):457–473.
        • 31. Hox JJ. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2010.
          • 32. Baldwin SA, Berkeljon A, Atkins DC, Olsen JA, Nielsen SL. Rates of change in naturalistic psychotherapy: Contrasting dose–effect and good-enough level models of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009;77(2):203–211. pmid:19309180
          • 33. Kendall PC, Peterman JS. CBT for Adolescents With Anxiety: Mature Yet Still Developing. AJP. 2015;172(6):519–530. pmid:26029805
          • 34. Carpenter JK, Andrews LA, Witcraft SM, Powers MB, Smits JAJ, Hofmann SG. Cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety and related disorders: A meta‐analysis of randomized placebo‐controlled trials. Depress Anxiety. 2018;35(6):502–514. pmid:29451967
          • 35. Olatunji BO, Cisler JM, Deacon BJ. Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: A Review of Meta-Analytic Findings. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2010;33(3):557–577. pmid:20599133
          • 36. van Dis EAM, van Veen SC, Hagenaars MA, Batelaan NM, Bockting CLH, van den Heuvel RM, et al. Long-term Outcomes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety-Related Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(3):265–273. pmid:31758858
          • 37. Springer KS, Levy HC, Tolin DF. Remission in CBT for adult anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2018;61:1–8. pmid:29576326
          • 38. DiMauro J, Domingues J, Fernandez G, Tolin DF. Long-term effectiveness of CBT for anxiety disorders in an adult outpatient clinic sample: A follow-up study. Behav Res Ther. 2013;51(2):82–86. pmid:23262115
          • 39. Ettman CK, Abdalla SM, Cohen GH, Sampson L, Vivier PM, Galea S. Prevalence of Depression Symptoms in US Adults Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2019686. pmid:32876685
          • 40. Czeisler MÉ, Lane RI, Wiley JF, Czeisler CA, Howard ME, Rajaratnam SMW. Follow-up Survey of US Adult Reports of Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic, September 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2037665. pmid:33606030