Innovations in research for treatment of late-life anxiety

Abstract

Objectives: While psychosocial interventions for late-life anxiety show positive outcomes, treatment effects are not as robust as in younger adults. To date, the reach of research has been limited to academic and primary care settings, with homogeneous samples. This review examines recently funded and ongoing late-life anxiety research that uses innovative approaches to reach unique patient populations and tailor treatment content and delivery options to meet the unique needs of older adults.

Method: A systematic search was conducted using electronic databases of funded clinical trials to identify ongoing psychosocial intervention studies targeting older adults with anxiety. The principal investigators (PIs) of the studies were contacted for study details and preliminary data, if available. In some cases, the PIs of identified studies acted as referral sources in identifying additional studies.

Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria and represented three areas of innovation: new patient groups, novel treatment procedures, and new treatment-delivery options. Studies and their associated theoretical bases are discussed, along with preliminary results reported in published papers or conference presentations.

Conclusion: Psychosocial intervention trials currently in progress represent promising new strategies to facilitate engagement and improve outcomes among unique subsets of older adults with anxiety. Continued investigation of evidence-based treatments for geriatric anxiety will allow greater understanding of how best to tailor the interventions to fit the needs of older adults.

Keywords:

• psychosocial treatment
• late-life anxiety
• generalized anxiety disorder
• older adults
• review

Acknowledgements

This project was partly supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH [MH53932]) and VA HSR&D Center of Excellence (HFP90-020). The opinions expressed reflect those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Baylor College of Medicine, the NIMH or the National Institutes of Health. The NIMH had no role in the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.