Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice in nursing 1000w

© 2015 Triscari et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further

permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 2591–2598

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Dovepress

submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com

Dovepress 2591

O r i g i N a l r e s e a r c h

open access to scientific and medical research

Open access Full Text article

http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S93401

effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic desensitization, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocess ing therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy combined with virtual reality exposure therapy methods in the treatment of flight anxiety: a randomized trial

correspondence: Palmira Faraci Faculty of human and social sciences, University of enna “Kore”, cittadella Universitaria, Viale delle Olimpiadi, 1 94100 enna, italy Tel +39 0935 536 536 Fax +39 0935 536 943 email [email protected]; [email protected]

Journal name: Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Article Designation: Original Research Year: 2015 Volume: 11 Running head verso: Triscari et al Running head recto: The treatment of flight anxiety: a randomized trial DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S93401

Maria Teresa Triscari1

Palmira Faraci2

Dario catalisano3

Valerio D’angelo1

Viviana Urso1

1laboratory for Psychosomatic Disorders, local health Trust, Palermo, italy; 2Faculty of human and social sciences, University of enna “Kore”, enna, italy; 3italian Flight safety committee, aeroporto di Fiumicino, Fiumicino (rM), italy

Abstract: The purpose of the research was to compare the effectiveness of the following treatment methods for fear of flying: cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) integrated with sys-

tematic desensitization, CBT combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

therapy, and CBT combined with virtual reality exposure therapy. Overall, our findings have

proven the efficacy of all interventions in reducing fear of flying in a pre- to post-treatment

comparison. All groups showed a decrease in flight anxiety, suggesting the efficiency of all three

treatments in reducing self-report measures of fear of flying. In particular, our results indicated

significant improvements for the treated patients using all the treatment programs, as shown not

only by test scores but also by participation in the post-treatment flight. Nevertheless, outcome

measures maintained a significant effect at a 1-year follow-up. In conclusion, combining CBT

with both the application of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing treatment and the

virtual stimuli used to expose patients with aerophobia seemed as efficient as traditional cogni-

tive behavioral treatments integrated with systematic desensitization.

Keywords: flight anxiety, fear of flying, aerophobia, cognitive behavioral therapy, EMDR, VRET

Introduction Although commercial air travels have become one of the safest forms of transport,

many people are still affected by aerophobia. In fact, the last years have been charac-

terized by a growing request for fear of flying intervention programs. Nevertheless,

rather few controlled studies on the compared effectiveness of different treatments

for flight anxiety were conducted.1,2 Phobias are the experiences of an unreasonable

amount of anxiety regarding a particular object or situation, causing the stimulus to

be completely avoided or endured with intense anxiety, which interferes with one’s

normal functioning.3 Specific phobias are set apart from ordinary fears by their impact

on daily functioning: distress may lead to impairments, such as being unable to maintain

a job or social relations.4 As regards their etiology, phobias result from an interaction

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

2592

Triscari et al

between a disposition to physiologically experienced fear

and a psychological vulnerability to experience anxiety.5

The flying phobia appears as a heterogeneous phenomenon,

with many components, not all of which are specific to flight

itself, characterized by three different kinds of symptoms:

physiological, psychological, and behavioral reactions. Fear

of flying can interfere with one’s personal and work life, and

it can range from moderate apprehension, to considerable

discomfort, to a disabling phobia.

As flying has become a more frequently integrated part

of our industrialized society, several treatment programs –

concerning anxiety management approaches, provision of

accurate information regarding airplanes and flying, and

exposure techniques – have been developed to treat patients

who suffer from fear of flying and are now available to those

who are motivated to overcome their problem. Most of the

treatment protocols usually include exposure in vivo or

in-flight simulators, stress inoculation training, systematic

desensitization, and relaxing training.6

While cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is considered

to be the first-line therapy for fear of flying, there are limited

data on whether other psychotherapeutic techniques are also

effective in treating aerophobia. Eye movement desensitiza-

tion and reprocessing (EMDR) is a relatively new technique

of treatment based on the theory that disturbing experiences

are stored in the brain and the associated negative emotions

become trapped in the body, preventing the person from

processing them during periods of rapid eye movement.

EMDR may aid to unlock these thoughts, helping the brain

to process them without experiencing the negativity that was

once associated, therefore reducing anxiety. Specifically,

the therapist helps the person to recall events, images, or

thoughts and gently couples rapid eye movements to each

event by careful observation and then redirects the eye

movements using a stimulant or distraction such as a light,

object, or music.

The effectiveness of CBT for fear of flying has been

scientifically well established,2 whereas the effectiveness

of EMDR in the treatment of a specific phobia has not

been long since investigated.7–9 This method is still lacking

empirical evidence supporting its efficacy with complex

or trauma-related phobias.10–13 Therefore, the application

of EMDR with specific phobias merits further clinical and

research attention.

Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET14,15) provides

a controlled environment for people who are exposed to

a computer-generated virtual world that simulates a real

experience with the feared object or situation. Some experi-

mental studies to examine the efficacy of VRET have found

encouraging results in treating anxiety disorders and a wide

range of specific phobias,16 including claustrophobia,17

acrophobia,18–20 agoraphobia,21,22 and flying phobia.17,23–25

The aim of the present paper was to compare the effective-

ness of the following treatment methods for fear of flying:

cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic

desensitization (CBT-SD), cognitive behavioral therapy

combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocess-

ing therapy (CBT-EMDR), and cognitive behavioral therapy

combined with virtual reality exposure therapy (CBT-

VRET). Sequence of the design included a pre-treatment

assessment, an intervention phase consisting of 10 weekly

treatment sessions, a post-treatment assessment 1 week after

the last treatment session, and a 1-year follow-up assessment.

It was hypothesized that CBT-SD, CBT-EMDR, and CBT-

VRET would similarly reduce flying anxiety and avoidance

between pre- and post-treatment assessments based on out-

come measures, which included self-report instruments and

flying avoidance. Fear of flying levels were derived from

the participants’ mean scores obtained at pre-treatment and

post-treatment assessment phases. It was expected that the

analyses would reveal statistically significant changes in

fear of flying measures with a decreasing trend from pre- to

post-treatment assessments. To reduce measurement error,

self-report measures with adequate psychometric properties

and sensitivity to treatment effects were included.

Methods Participants Participants were 65 flight phobics self-referred to the Labora-

tory for Psychosomatic Disorders of the Local Health Trust

of Palermo, asking for a training program aimed to reduce

or eliminate fear of flying. They were 30.8% males and

69.2% females, with a mean age of 43.52 (standard deviation

[SD] =10.42; range =24–70). All participants were involved in the assessment phase before and after the treatment program.

They were interviewed with the Millon Clinical Multiaxial

Inventory (MCMI-III26,27), conducted by a trained psycholo-

gist and met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM-V) criteria for neurotic diseases, phobia,

anxiety, and panic attacks. Exclusion criteria were neuro-

logical disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder or acute stress

disorder not related to fear of flying, severe agoraphobia, and

a comorbid psychiatric diagnosis. Subjects were also excluded

if they had suicidal tendencies or did not want to stabilize their

antidepressant medication during the course of treatment.

The first group received the CBT-SD program. It con-

sisted of 22 patients (36.4% men and 63.6% women), with

a mean age of 43.57 years (SD =10.13; range =29–70).

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

2593

The treatment of flight anxiety: a randomized trial

They were employers (57.1%), teachers (4.8%), freelancers

(23.7%), pensioners (4.8%), housewives (4.8%), and man-

agers (4.8%). The most frequent marital status was married

(60%), followed by single (30%), single in a committed

relationship (5%), and divorced (5%). Educational level

ranged from lower school certificate (4.8%) to university

graduates (28.6%), with 57.1% high-school graduates and

9.5% postuniversity certificates.

The second group received the CBT-EMDR program.

It consisted of 22 patients (31.8% men and 68.2% women),

with an average age of 41.55 years (SD =10.89; range =24–63). They were employers (45.5%), teachers (4.5%), freelancers

(18.2%), unemployed people (9.1%), housewives (4.5%),

manager (9.1%), students (4.5%), and entrepreneurs (4.5%).

The most frequent marital status was married (47.6%), fol-

lowed by single (42.9%), single in a committed relationship

(4.8%), and widowed (4.8%). Educational level ranged

from lower school certificate (4.5%) to university graduates

(63.6%), with 31.8% high-school graduates.

The third group received the CBT-VRET program. It con-

sisted of 21 patients (23.8% men and 76.2% women), with an

average age of 45.52 years (SD =10.32; range =27–67). They were employers (33.3%), teachers (14.3%), freelancers (23.8%),

pensioners (4.8%), housewives (9.5%), manager (9.5%),

and students (4.8%). The most frequent marital status was

married (57.1%), followed by single (28.6%), single in a com-

mitted relationship (4.8%), and divorced (9.5%). Educational

level ranged from high-school graduates (33.3%) to university

graduates (47.6%), with 19% postuniversity certificates.

After complete description of the study to the partici-

pants, written informed consent was obtained. Institutional

review board (IRB) approval was obtained. This research was

approved by the Italian Ministry of Health with registration

n. 311 and protocol n. DGPREV/P/28610 F.3 A.D./317.

Procedure Prior to enrolling in the study, participants were informed

about the aim of the research, and a strong emphasis was put

on voluntary adherence and data confidentiality. To minimize

the subject characteristics that might differentially affect

treatment effects across individuals, flight phobic patients

were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups

based on a previously generated random numbers table.

The three treatment programs were carried out in 10 weekly

sessions, each one lasting 2 hours, by an experienced clinical

psychotherapist and two psychologists. All the participants

were treated in small groups during the first three sessions

consisting of 1) psychoeducation, providing information about

anxiety, teaching how to manage anxiety, and enhancing a

differential analysis of fear, phobia, and anxiety; 2) cognitive

and behavioral techniques, introducing both in vivo and ima-

ginal exposure and teaching how to restructure dysfunctional

thoughts; 3) relaxation techniques, teaching how to practice

Schultz’s autogenic training or progressive relaxation; and

4) education about flying, providing data regarding the basic

notions of flight and aviation, including safety issues, objective

risks, turbulence, and accidents. Sessions 4–6 were specific to

each treatment group. From sessions 7–10, the program was

carried out identically for the three treatment groups. After

visiting the air traffic control tower, patients could ask their

questions to both an airline pilot and an air traffic controller.

A demo flight allowed them to go through the different phases

that precede a real flight. A simulated departure in a real air-

plane and a real flight ended the treatment.

instruments Two inventories were administered to the participants for

assessing several aspects of fear of flying, focusing on feel-

ings, attitudes, and cognitions referring to specific flight-

related events:

1. Flight Anxiety Situations Questionnaire (FAS28)

(32 items), which measures the level of anxiety produced

by specific flying situations. It consists of three subscales:

Generalized Flight Anxiety, referring to anxiety experi-

enced in connection with airplanes in general, regardless

of personal involvement in a flight situation (eg, seeing or

hearing planes or bringing someone to the airport); Antici-

patory Flight Anxiety, pertaining to anxiety experienced

before the time the flight actually starts (eg, planning a

trip, boarding the plane); and In-Flight Anxiety, concern-

ing anxiety experienced during a flight, from takeoff until

landing (eg, different situations in flight). Respondents are

asked to circle the number corresponding to their level of

anxiety in the situations mentioned, using a scale from 1

(no anxiety) to 5 (overwhelming anxiety).

2. Flight Anxiety Modality Questionnaire (FAM28), which

focuses on symptom expressions, such as physiological

responses of anxiety and thoughts related to the danger

of flying. The FAM consists of 18 items structured into

two subscales: Somatic Modality, referring to physical

symptoms, and Cognitive Modality, pertaining to the

presence of distressing cognitions. Here the respondents

are asked to rate the degree to which each item accurately

describes the intensity of their own reaction using a scale

from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very intensely).

Both FAS and FAM revealed good psychometric proper-

ties and cover distinct reactions to aerophobia, in terms of

behavior, physiology, and cognitions. Besides, FAS allows

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

2594

Triscari et al

assessing one’s responses at various stages of a flight, from the

preliminary phase to the actual flight. Therefore, the admin-

istered instruments seem helpful in obtaining a thorough and

accurate assessment of the most relevant phobic stimuli. Based

on their sensitivity to change, they appear suitable to evaluate

treatment outcomes on flight anxiety. In particular, both FAS

and FAM may be supportive in measuring differential treat-

ment effects on specific aspects of fear of flying.29,30

Design An experimental group design was applied with measure-

ments at three stages: pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at

a follow-up of 1 year postflight. The first group received

the CBT-SD treatment, the second group received the

CBT-EMDR treatment, and the third group received the

CBT-VRET treatment. As dependent variables, data were

collected regarding 1) flight anxiety situations, in terms of

generalized flight anxiety, anticipatory flight anxiety, and

in-flight anxiety and 2) flight anxiety modality, in terms of

somatic modality and cognitive modality.

We analyzed differences both in pre- and post-treatment

measures and in pre- and follow-up measures on the FAS and

FAM with paired t-tests to evaluate the degree of change.

Besides, as a measure of effect size, we calculated Cohen’s d

coefficients within groups. For the purpose of interpretation,

according to Cohen’s conventional criteria, d=0.20 is consid- ered to be a slight effect, d=0.50 is considered to be a moder- ate effect, and d=0.80 is considered to be a substantial effect. An analysis of means comparison, computed with a one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA), was performed to determine

whether there was any evidence that the average scores of the

three groups were different at the pre-test. A comparison of

both the post-treatment and follow-up scores between groups

was also conducted via one-way ANOVA.

Results Based on paired t-test results, both FAS and FAM subscales

seemed to be sensitive to the CBT-SD treatment intervention.

On all scales, the difference between pre- and post-treatment

scores revealed a high effect size (Cohen’s d ranged from

1.32 to 2.23) (Table 1).

As shown in Table 2, both FAS and FAM scales seemed

to be sensitive to the CBT-EMDR treatment intervention.

The difference between pre- and post-treatment scores

reported a very high effect size for all self-report instruments’

subscales (Cohen’s d ranged from 1.23 to 2.67).

Table 1 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-sD pre- and post-treatment and 1-year follow-up

Measures Pre-treatment, M (SD)

Post-treatment, M (SD)

Follow-up, M (SD)

Pre–post Pre–follow-up

t-value Cohen’s d t-value Cohen’s d

Fas gFa 15.45 (6.16) 9.14 (2.73) 8.86 (5.18) 4.81*** 1.32 5.12*** 1.16 Fas aFa 47.45 (8.46) 26.59 (12.53) 25.19 (15.31) 8.57*** 1.95 6.92*** 1.80 Fas i-Fa 48.68 (9.85) 26.86 (10.75) 27.71 (15.82) 9.60*** 2.12 6.57*** 1.59 Fas Ts 111.59 (20.40) 62.59 (23.48) 61.76 (34.49) 9.78*** 2.23 7.00*** 1.76 FaM sM 27.86 (9.74) 15.32 (7.39) 16.57 (9.56) 5.93*** 1.45 4.42*** 1.17 FaM cM 24.86 (7.09) 14.00 (6.31) 14.67 (8.07) 7.35*** 1.62 5.57*** 1.34 FaM Ts 52.73 (14.04) 29.32 (13.22) 31.24 (16.69) 7.22*** 1.72 5.40*** 1.39

Note: ***P,0.001. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-sD, cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic desensitization; M, mean; sD, standard deviation; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

Table 2 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-eMDr pre- and post-treatment and 1-year follow-up

Measures Pre-treatment, M (SD)

Post-treatment, M (SD)

Follow-up, M (SD)

Pre–post Pre–follow-up

t-value Cohen’s d t-value Cohen’s d

Fas gFa 12.86 (4.44) 8.23 (1.86) 8.27 (2.47) 4.48*** 1.36 4.02** 1.28 Fas aFa 44.27 (8.58) 23.86 (8.03) 25.59 (8.91) 10.22*** 2.46 9.09*** 2.14 Fas i-Fa 49.09 (8.90) 26.91 (10.67) 24.36 (9.77) 10.19*** 2.26 11.72*** 2.64 Fas Ts 106.23 (17.55) 59.00 (17.78) 58.23 (17.73) 11.40*** 2.67 11.52*** 2.72 FaM sM 25.18 (8.56) 15.50 (7.12) 13.64 (2.77) 6.34*** 1.23 6.12*** 1.81 FaM cM 25.55 (6.46) 13.68 (6.14) 13.82 (4.95) 9.14*** 1.88 7.48*** 2.04 FaM Ts 50.73 (10.77) 29.18 (10.90) 27.45 (5.85) 8.92*** 1.99 8.05*** 2.68

Notes: **P,0.01; ***P,0.001. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-eMDr, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy; M, mean; sD, standard deviation; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

2595

The treatment of flight anxiety: a randomized trial

Table 3 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-VreT pre- and post-treatment and 1-year follow-up

Measures Pre-treatment, M (SD)

Post-treatment, M (SD)

Follow-up, M (SD)

Pre–post Pre–follow-up t-value Cohen’s d t-value Cohen’s d

Fas gFa 15.67 (6.81) 9.57 (3.79) 10.45 (5.39) 4.53*** 1.11 2.84* 0.85 Fas aFa 45.29 (6.93) 24.71 (10.55) 26.30 (10.06) 9.82*** 2.31 5.73*** 2.20 Fas i-Fa 50.19 (9.04) 29.86 (14.36) 27.70 (11.35) 6.86*** 1.69 6.66*** 2.19 Fas Ts 111.14 (18.57) 64.14 (27.57) 64.45 (24.33) 8.58*** 2.00 6.09*** 2.16 FaM sM 27.00 (9.60) 15.38 (4.81) 15.10 (5.35) 6.92*** 1.53 4.72*** 1.53 FaM cM 27.38 (4.53) 14.86 (5.27) 14.15 (5.58) 11.03*** 2.55 8.11*** 2.60 FaM Ts 54.38 (12.09) 30.24 (9.53) 29.25 (10.49) 10.84*** 2.22 6.88*** 2.22

Notes: *P,0.05; ***P,0.001. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-VreT, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with virtual reality exposure therapy; M, mean; sD, standard deviation; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

Figure 1 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-sD, cBT-eMDr, and cBT-VreT pre-treatment. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-sD, cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic desensitization; cBT-eMDr, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy; cBT-VreT, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with virtual reality exposure therapy; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

As shown in Table 3, both FAS and FAM scales seemed to

be sensitive to the CBT-VRET treatment intervention. On all

subscales, the difference between pre- and post-treatment scores

showed a very high effect size (Cohen’s d ranged from 1.11 to

2.55). Composite scores for each measure were computed by

summing the responses of subset of the subscales’ items. The

min–max possible values for each composite score is 6–30

(FAS Generalized Flight Anxiety), 11–55 (FAS Anticipatory

Flight Anxiety), 12–60 (FAS In-Flight Anxiety), 29–145 (FAS

Total score), 10–50 (FAM Somatic Modality), 7–35 (FAM

Cognitive Modality), and 17–85 (FAM Total score).

A one-way ANOVA was performed to contrast

pre-treatment measures between the three experimental

groups. No mean differences were found between CBT-SD,

CBT-EMDR, and CBT-VRET groups, indicating that the

three groups did not differ previously to the intervention:

FAS Generalized Flight Anxiety (F=1.54; P=0.223), FAS Anticipatory Flight Anxiety (F=0.90; P=0.413), FAS In- Flight Anxiety (F=0.15; P=0.860), FAS Total score (F=0.54;

P=0.584), FAM Somatic Modality (F=0.48; P=0.624), FAM Cognitive Modality (F=0.96; P=0.389), and FAM Total score (F=0.47; P=0.627). Average scores on the FAM and FAS subscales at CBT-SD, CBT-EMDR, and CBT-VRET

pre-treatment are reported in Figure 1.

Based on our findings, CBT-SD, CBT-EMDR, and CBT-

VRET treatments seemed to be effective in reducing fear of

flying without statistical significant differences. No mean

differences were found between the three groups after treat-

ment: FAS Generalized Flight Anxiety (F=1.22; P=0.303), FAS Anticipatory Flight Anxiety (F=0.39; P=0.682), FAS In- Flight Anxiety (F=0.44; P=0.649), FAS Total score (F=0.28; P=0.757), FAM Somatic Modality (F=0.00; P=0.996), FAM Cognitive Modality (F=0.22; P=0.800), and FAM Total score (F=0.06; P=0.947). Average scores on the FAM and FAS subscales at CBT-SD, CBT-EMDR, and CBT-VRET

post-treatment are presented in Figure 2.

Similarly, no mean differences were found between

the three groups at the follow-up: FAS Generalized Flight

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

2596

Triscari et al

Anxiety (F=1.30; P=0.281), FAS Anticipatory Flight Anxi- ety (F=0.05; P=0.954), FAS In-Flight Anxiety (F=0.51; P=0.604), FAS Total score (F=0.30; P=0.745), FAM Somatic Modality (F=1.10; P=0.341), FAM Cognitive Modality (F=0.10; P=0.907), and FAM Total score (F=0.55; P=0.580). Average scores on the FAM and FAS subscales at CBT-SD,

CBT-EMDR, and CBT-VRET follow-up measures are

reported in Figure 3. Average scores on the FAM and FAS

subscales at CBT-SD, CBT-EMDR, and CBT-VRET pre-

test, post-test and follow-up are represent in Figure 4.

As a very important outcome index, 21 patients (95.5%)

were able to board on a real flight at the end of the CBT-SD

program, 20 patients (90.9%) flew at the end of the CBT-

EMDR program, whereas all the 21 phobics (100%) flew at

the end of the CBT-VRET program.

Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study in which CBT-SD,

CBT-EMDR, and CBT-VRET are directly compared with

patients fearful of flying. The outcomes of the reported

randomized trial indicate that combining CBT with both

the application of eye movement desensitization and repro-

cessing treatment, and the virtual stimuli used to expose

patients with aerophobia seemed as efficient as traditional

cognitive behavioral treatments integrated with systematic

desensitization.

Overall, our findings have proven the efficacy of all inter-

ventions in reducing fear of flying in a pre- to post-treatment

comparison. All groups showed a decrease in flight anxiety

as evidenced by the test scores, suggesting the efficiency

of the three treatments in reducing self-report measures of

Figure 2 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-sD, cBT-eMDr, and cBT-VreT post-treatment. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-sD, cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic desensitization; cBT-eMDr, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy; cBT-VreT, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with virtual reality exposure therapy; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

Figure 3 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-sD, cBT-eMDr, and cBT-VreT follow-up measures. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-sD, cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic desensitization; cBT-eMDr, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy; cBT-VreT, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with virtual reality exposure therapy; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11 submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

2597

The treatment of flight anxiety: a randomized trial

Figure 4 average scores on the FaM and Fas subscales at cBT-sD (n=22), cBT-eMDr (n=22), and cBT-VreT (n=21) pre-test, post-test, and follow-up. Abbreviations: FaM, Flight anxiety Modality; Fas, Flight anxiety situations; cBT-sD, cognitive behavioral therapy integrated with systematic desensitization; cBT-eMDr, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy; cBT-VreT, cognitive behavioral therapy combined with virtual reality exposure therapy; gFa, generalized Flight anxiety; aFa, anticipatory Flight anxiety; i-Fa, in-Flight anxiety; sM, somatic Modality; cM, cognitive Modality; Ts, total score.

fear of flying. In particular, our results indicated significant

improvements for the treated patients using all the treatment

programs, as shown not only by test scores but also by partici-

pation in the post-treatment flight. Nevertheless, outcome mea-

sures maintained a significant effect at a 1-year follow-up.

Although all applied treatment methods seem equally

efficient, each of these three methods have positive and

negative aspects, advantages, and disadvantages: on the one

hand, the CBT is the cheapest and less complex method, and

on the other hand, CBT-VRET is the most expensive method

(the cost of the entire equipment is high), but sessions are

very short (just half an hour). Finally, CBT-EMDR method

needs very high professional competences because EMDR is

a complex psychotherapeutic approach that integrates many

aspects of a variety of theoretical orientations. Moreover, it

is crucial that in the use of EMDR, appropriate attention is

paid to treatment fidelity; the standardized procedures and

protocols are being used and have been receiving preliminary

testing: untested additions to standardized protocols will

diminish treatment effectiveness. However, all three meth-

ods and their integrations seemed to be effective ways to

address pressing a social and widespread pathology called

“fear of flying”.

Even though these preliminary results showed the

comparable effectiveness of all three examined treatment

procedures, upcoming research is strongly recommended.

Purposely, new developments are needed with a larger

sample size and the incorporation of both control groups and

additional experimental groups such as EMDR and VRET

treatment method without CBT combination.

In conclusion, given the powerful effects observed, our

findings suggest that further investigation of both EMDR

and VRET for fear of flying is warranted. It was hoped that

results from this study would encourage future research with

patients who suffer from fear of flying to be investigated in

the long term.

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References 1. Bor R, Van Gerwen LJ. Psychological Perspectives on Fear of Flying.

Hampshire: Ashgate; 2003. 2. Van Gerwen LJ, Spinhoven P, Diekstra RF, Van Dyck R. Behavioral

and cognitive group treatment for fear of flying: a randomized controlled trail. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2006;37(206):358–371.

3. Durand VM, Barlow DH. Essentials of Abnormal Psychology. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning; 2003.

4. Mogotsi M, Kaminer D, Stein DJ. Quality of life in the anxiety disorders. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2000;8(6):273–282.

5. Barlow DH. Anxiety and its Disorders: The Nature and Treatment of Anxiety and Panic. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002.

6. Foreman EI, Van Gerwen L. Fly Away Fear: Overcoming Your Fear of Flying. London: Karnac Books; 2008.

7. Shapiro F. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Basic Principles, Protocols, and Procedures. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2001.

8. Bae HK, Park YC. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for adolescent depression. Psychiatry Investig. 2008;5:60–65.

9. Triscari MT, Faraci P, D’Angelo V, Urso V, Catalisano D. Two treatments for fear of flying compared: cognitive behavioral therapy combined with systematic desensitization or eye movement desensitization and repro- cessing (EMDR). Aviat Psychol Appl Hum Factors. 2011;1(1):9–14.

10. Fernandez I, Faretta E. EMDR in the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Clin Case Stud. 2007;6:44–63.

11. Gauvreau P, Bouchard SP. Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of EMDR in treating generalized anxiety disorder. J EMDR Pract Res. 2008;2:26–40.

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment

Publish your work in this journal

Submit your manuscript here: http://www.dovepress.com/neuropsychiatric-disease-and-treatment-journal

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment is an international, peer- reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical or pre-clinical studies on a range of neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders. This journal is indexed on PubMed Central, the ‘PsycINFO’ database and CAS,

and is the official journal of The International Neuropsychiatric Association (INA). The manuscript management system is completely online and includes a very quick and fair peer-review system, which is all easy to use. Visit http://www.dovepress.com/testimonials.php to read real quotes from published authors.

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2015:11submit your manuscript | www.dovepress.com Dovepress

Dovepress

Dovepress

2598

Triscari et al

12. Newgent RA, Paladino DA, Reynolds CA. Single session treatment of nontraumatic fear of flying with eye movement eesensitization repro- cessing: pre and post September 11. Clin Case Stud. 2006;5:25–36.

13. Schurmans K. EMDR treatment of choking phobia. J EMDR Pract Res. 2007;1:118–121.

14. Glantz K, Durlach NI, Barnett RC, Aviles WA. Virtual reality (VR) for psychotherapy: from the physical to social environment. Psychotherapy. 1996;33:464–473.

15. Rothbaum BO, Hodges LF, Kooper IR. Virtual reality exposure therapy. J Psychother Pract Res. 1997;6:219–226.

16. Parsons TD, Rizzo AA. Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: a meta-analysis. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2008;39:250–261.

17. Botella C, Osma J, Garcia-Palacios A, Quero S, Baños RM. Treatment of flying phobia using virtual reality: data from a 1-year follow-up using a multiple baseline design. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2004;11:311–323.

18. Coelho CM, Waters AM, Hine TJ, Wallis G. The use of virtual reality in acrophobia research and treatment. J Anxiety Disord. 2009;23(5): 563–574.

19. Emmelkamp PM, Krijn M, Hulsbosch AM, de Vries S, Schuemie MJ, van der Mast CA. Virtual reality treatment versus exposure in vivo: a comparative evaluation in acrophobia. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40(5): 509–516.

20. Krijn M, Emmelkamp PMG, Biemond R, de Wilde de Ligny C, Schuemie MJ, van der Mast CAPG. Treatment of acrophobia in virtual reality: the role of immersion and presence. Behav Res Ther. 2004;42: 229–239.

21. North MM, North SM, Coble JR. Effectiveness of virtual environment desensitization in the treatment of agoraphobia. Presence. 1996;5: 346–352.

22. Peñate W, Pitti CT, Bethencourt JM, de la Fuente J, Gracia R. The effects of a treatment based on the use of virtual reality exposure and cognitive-behavioral therapy applied to patients with agoraphobia. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2008;8(1):5–22.

23. Muhlberger A, Herrmann MJ, Wiedemann G, Ellring H, Pauli P. Repeated exposure of flight phobics to flights in virtual reality. Behav Res Ther. 2001;39:1033–1050.

24. Rothbaum BO, Hodges LF, Smith S, Lee JH, Price L. A controlled study of virtual reality exposure therapy for the fear of flying. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;6:1020–1026.

25. Rothbaum BO, Hodges LF, Anderson PL, Price L, Smith S. Twelve- month follow-up of virtual reality and standard exposure therapy for the fear of flying. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002;70:428–432.

26. Millon T, Millon C, Davis R. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems; 1994.

27. Zennaro A, Ferracuti S, Lang M, Sanavio E. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III Italian Adaptation). Florence: Giunti O.S; 2008.

28. Van Gerwen LJ, Spinhoven P, Van Dyck R, Diekstra RFW. Construction and psychometric characteristics of two self-report questionnaires for the assessment of fear of flying. Psychol Assess. 1999;11:146–158.

29. Triscari MT, Faraci P, D’Angelo V, Urso V. Paura di volare: struttura fattoriale di due questionari. [Fear of flying: factor analyses of two ques- tionnaires]. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale. 2011;17(2): 211–226.

30. Faraci P, Triscari MT, D’Angelo V, Urso V. Fear of flying assessment: a contribution to the Italian validation of two self-report measures. Rev Psychol. 2011;18(2):91–100.

N

e u

ro p

sy ch

ia tr

ic D

is e

a se

a n

d T

re a

tm e

n t

d o

w n

lo a

d e

d f

ro m

h tt

p s:

// w

w w

.d o

ve p

re ss

.c o

m /

b y

1 6

5 .2

1 5

.2 0

9 .1

5 o

n 1

6 -J

u n

-2 0

1 9

F o

r p

e rs

o n

a l u

se o

n ly

.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1 / 1

© 2015. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (the “License”).

Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

1. Publication Info 4:
2. Nimber of times reviewed 2: