The Impact of a CBT Program for Pediatric Patients with Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction and Co-Occurring Mental Health Diagnoses 2026 Cunningham+

[Andy]

Abstract​

Objectives​

Pediatric disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) often co-occur with a variety of mental health conditions. This analysis examines the impact of a brief cognitive behavioral program (ADAPT; Aim to Decrease Anxiety and Pain Treatment) targeting pain and anxiety in youth with DGBI and comorbid mental health diagnoses.

Study Design​

This secondary analysis of a clinical trial includes participants between the ages of 9-14 with DGBI, randomized to ADAPT plus medical treatment as usual (TAU), or TAU alone. Participants completed the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Child Version (ADIS-IV-C) to determine if they met criteria for a mental health diagnosis at baseline and at post assessment 8 weeks later. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)-style logistic regression models were used to assess whether ADAPT+TAU had an impact on mental health diagnoses compared to TAU alone.

Results​

ADAPT+TAU was associated with a lower posttest rate of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) compared to TAU (26.4% vs 46.1%, OR = 3.11, 95% CI = [1.03, 9.41].) Although additional diagnoses trended in similar directions, no other rates of diagnoses across other mental health conditions met the threshold for significance at post-test.

Conclusion​

ADAPT is associated with reductions in GAD diagnoses in youth with DGBI. Although not a target of ADAPT, there appeared to be a generalization of treatment effects on other mental health conditions, but larger controlled studies are needed.

Paywall

 

[Utsikt]

Seems like they «targeted» anxiety by focusing on «fear avoidance», reframing and distraction.

As expected, they got some marginal subjective differences in a hopelessly flawed trial, but it did not affect anything else. So pretty much useless.

 

[bobbler]

Seems like they «targeted» anxiety by focusing on «fear avoidance», reframing and distraction.

As expected, they got some marginal subjective differences in a hopelessly flawed trial, but it did not affect anything else. So pretty much useless.

Retraining in how, whether and using what words children report (or feel comfortable/safe being allowed to say) symptoms,

… not ‘making the symptoms better’

At its worst can these people imagine the impacts of doing this to adults nevermind kids. Training them in whether they are allowed to speak or be heard without even checking the assumption there’s nothing there is true. Or the assumption what they think or claim deserved the anxiety label isn’t what would/should be a normal reaction even from an adult like themselves to the behaviour of those they’ve encountered.

That should be required as a well considered section (as limitations should be treated honestly and honourable and the contents of which are seen as they main section by which to judge scientific gravitas and critical thinking ability of the paper writer ie ‘the manifesto-test’ to see if it’s real science or just opinion) called ‘potential unintended consequences of this treatment and its manner of delivery (ie was patient given little choice or an option if this or nothing cos we are assuming it’s not biomedical)’

I saw something in social media talking about Greys law the other day - which seems to cover the old weaponised incompetence being repeated claiming ‘didn’t realise’ even when it’s the umpteenth time and they’ve seen the consequences before

Why is this area not required to have diligent awareness of what harm their intervention or even inferences from it can do as a domino effect and one be assessed by that above all being competent enough to understand and think through ALL changes it could cause - to show awareness of risk and thereby a true understanding of what they are actually up to and that would be more ‘holistic’ wouldn’t it to understand the context of what they are suggesting ?

 

[Amw66]

Children become exceptionally good at telling people what they think they want to hear , particularly if they are uncomfortable and want to make a situation end sooner rather than later .

This is so basic , and psychology rarely acknowledges it .

ETA changed recognises to acknowledges