The ToT study: helping with Touch or Talk (ToT): a pilot randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical effectiveness of aromatherapy massage versus cognitive behaviour therapy for emotional distress in patients in cancer/palliative care.

Distress associated with cancer often presents with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is one of the most effective psychological treatments. Complementary therapies, especially aromatherapy massage (AM), are also popular and alleviate anxiety. No studies have directly compared these two treatments. The aim of this study is to (1) test the feasibility of recruitment into a randomised controlled trial of AM versus CBT in patients with cancer; (2) test and modify the intervention; (3) determine whether changes in outcomes were consistent with published data. Patients at all stages of cancer, recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and screening eight or more for anxiety and/or depression on the HADS, were randomised to Treatment as Usual (TAU) plus up to eight sessions weekly of either AM or CBT, offered within 3 months. The POMS was collected at baseline and 3 and 6 months post baseline. Of those suitable, over 60% (39/63) participated (AM, n = 20; CBT, n = 19) and over 90% (36/39) were followed up. Both packages were well received. The preference was for AM, with more sessions were taken up; (Mean number sessions AM = 7.2 (SD 2.0) and CBT = 5.4 (SD 3.1); P<0.05). Significant improvements in POMS (Total Mood, depression and anxiety scores) occurred with both interventions. Between-group comparison showed a non-significant trend towards greater improvement in depression with CBT. Recruitment was feasible; the interventions acceptable and engagement with treatment was high. Improvements with both interventions were observed. The beneficial effects on depression with CBT appeared to be sustained.

Serfaty M ，Wilkinson S ，Freeman C ，Mannix K ，King M ... -  《-》

Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in primary care.

King M ，Sibbald B ，Ward E ，Bower P ，Lloyd M ，Gabbay M ，Byford S ... -  《HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT》

Clinical effectiveness of individual cognitive behavioral therapy for depressed older people in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.

Serfaty MA ，Haworth D ，Blanchard M ，Buszewicz M ，Murad S ，King M ... -  《-》

A cluster randomized controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy for common mental disorders in patients with advanced cancer.

Moorey S ，Cort E ，Kapari M ，Monroe B ，Hansford P ，Mannix K ，Henderson M ，Fisher L ，Hotopf M ... -  《PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE》

Aromasticks in cancer care: an innovation not to be sniffed at.

To evaluate the effects of a new aromatherapy intervention introduced within an acute cancer care setting in the UK. Aromatherapy is a popular complementary therapy within oncology settings and is known to help relieve patients' anxiety. A new method of delivering aromatherapy to patients was adopted by a complementary therapy service at a UK hospital; aromasticks are similar in design to the Vicks® Vapour Inhaler®, with the intention of helping patients manage anxiety, nausea and sleep disturbance. A retrospective service evaluation. Patients referred to the complementary therapy service were, if appropriate, offered an aromastick. If the offer was accepted patients' details were captured on an evaluation form. One week later the patients were followed up by a different therapist. Frequency of using the aromastick and perceived benefits were documented. A total of 160 patients were included in this evaluation. 77% (n = 123) of all patients reported deriving at least one benefit from the aromastick. In anxious patients, 65% reported feeling more relaxed and 51% felt less stress. 47% of nauseous patients said that the aromastick had settled their nausea and 55% of those experiencing sleep disturbances felt that aromastick helped them sleep. The results also suggest that the effects of the aromastick may be directly proportional to the frequency of their use. Evidence demonstrating physiological changes associated with aroma inhalation plus the data presented in this paper highlight the potential for aromasticks within the clinical setting. Although the results of this evaluation of patient perspectives are not controlled, the data does underline the worth of further investigation. Future research is needed to show that aromasticks represent a tool patients can use to self-manage their own symptoms and help them retain an internal locus of control.

Stringer J ，Donald G 《-》