J Med Internet Res. 2020 Nov 20;22(11):e18691. doi: 10.2196/18691.

Stephanie Hughes ¹, Alice Sibelli ², Hazel A Everitt ¹, Rona Moss-Morris ², Trudie Chalder ³, J Matthew Harvey ¹, Andrea Vas Falcao ¹, Sabine Landau ², Gilly O'Reilly ¹, Sula Windgassen ³, Rachel Holland ², Paul Little ¹, Paul McCrone ², Kimberley Goldsmith ², Nicholas Coleman ⁴, Robert Logan ⁵, Felicity L Bishop ¹

Author information

• ¹Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
• ²Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
• ³Academic Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
• ⁴Department of Gastroenterology, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
• ⁵Kings College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Background: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is recommended in guidelines for people with refractory irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, the availability of CBT is limited, and poor adherence has been reported in face-to-face CBT.

Objective: Nested within a randomized controlled trial of telephone- and web-delivered CBT for refractory IBS, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers to and facilitators of engagement over time with the interventions, identify social and psychological processes of change, and provide insight into trial results.

Methods: A longitudinal qualitative study was nested in a randomized controlled trial. Repeated semistructured interviews were conducted at 3 (n=34) and 12 months (n=25) post baseline. Participants received telephone-based CBT (TCBT; n=17 at 3 months and n=13 at 12 months) or web-based CBT (WCBT; n=17 at 3 months and n=12 at 12 months). Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.

Results: Participants viewed CBT as credible for IBS, perceived their therapists as knowledgeable and supportive, and liked the flexibility of web-based and telephone-based delivery; these factors facilitated engagement. Potential barriers to engagement in both groups (mostly overcome by our participants) included initial skepticism and concerns about the biopsychosocial nature of CBT, initial concerns about telephone-delivered talking therapy, challenges of maintaining motivation and self-discipline given already busy lives, and finding nothing new in the WCBT (WCBT group only). Participants described helpful changes in their understanding of IBS, attitudes toward IBS, ability to recognize IBS patterns, and IBS-related behaviors. Consistent with the trial results, participants described lasting positive effects on their symptoms, work, and social lives. Reasons and remedies for some attenuation of effects were identified.

Conclusions: Both TCBT and WCBT for IBS were positively received and had lasting positive impacts on participants' understanding of IBS, IBS-related behaviors, symptoms, and quality of life. These forms of CBT may broaden access to CBT for IBS.