'Third wave' cognitive and behavioural therapies versus treatment as usual for depression

A systematic review of cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions for comorbid chronic pain and clinically relevant psychological distress

Objective

Chronic pain frequently co-occurs with clinically relevant psychological distress. A systematic review was conducted to identify the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions for patients with these comorbid conditions.

Methods

The systematic search was carried out in Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus up to March 18th, 2023. Four reviewers independently conducted screenings, extraction, and quality assessment.

Results

Twelve randomized controlled trials and one non-randomized controlled trial involving 1,661 participants that examined the efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (nine studies), Mindfulness-based Interventions (three studies), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (one study), and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression (one study) were included. Compared to treatment as usual, six out of eight studies of traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy reported significant differences in the reduction of depressive symptoms at post-treatment (d from 1.31 to 0.18) and four out of six at follow-up (d from 0.75 to 0.26); similarly, five out of six reported significant differences in the reduction of anxiety symptoms at post-treatment (d from 1.08 to 0.19) and three out of four at follow-up (d from 1.07 to 0.27). Overall, no significant differences between traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and treatment as usual were reported at post-treatment and follow-up in the studies exploring pain intensity and pain catastrophizing.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests that traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy may produce significant benefits for the improvement of depression, anxiety, and quality of life, but not for pain intensity and pain catastrophizing. More evidence is needed to determine the effects of MBI, ACT, and BATD.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, CRD42021219921.

Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hundreds of randomised controlled trials and dozens of meta-analyses have examined psychotherapies for depression-yet not all points in the same direction. Are these discrepancies a result of specific meta-analytical decisions or do most analytical strategies reaching the same conclusion?

OBJECTIVE

We aim to solve these discrepancies by conducting a multiverse meta-analysis containing all possible meta-analyses, using all statistical methods.

STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

We searched four bibliographical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), including studies published until 1 January 2022. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing psychotherapies with control conditions without restricting the type of psychotherapy, target group, intervention format, control condition and diagnosis. We defined all possible meta-analyses emerging from combinations of these inclusion criteria and estimated the resulting pooled effect sizes with fixed-effect, random-effects, 3-level, robust variance estimation, p-uniform and PET-PEESE (precision-effect test and precision-effect estimate with SE) meta-analysis models. This study was preregistered (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050197).

FINDINGS

A total of 21 563 records were screened, and 3584 full texts were retrieved; 415 studies met our inclusion criteria containing 1206 effect sizes and 71 454 participants. Based on all possible combinations between inclusion criteria and meta-analytical methods, we calculated 4281 meta-analyses. The average summary effect size for these meta-analyses was Hedges' g mean=0.56, a medium effect size, and ranged from g=-0.66 to 2.51. In total, 90% of these meta-analyses reached a clinically relevant magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The multiverse meta-analysis revealed the overall robustness of the effectiveness of psychotherapies for depression. Notably, meta-analyses that included studies with a high risk of bias, compared the intervention with wait-list control groups, and not correcting for publication bias produced larger effect sizes.

Efficacy of Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression and Anxiety among Global Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial Study

Background: Depression and anxiety have become the most common mental health disorders worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing interest in telemedicine has led to the innovation of using internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT). Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of iCBT for depression and anxiety among the global population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, ProQuest, Wiley, and Web of Science using the PRISMA framework, and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the study. A critical appraisal was also performed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias (RoB) 2. The meta-analysis used random-effects models to analyze pooled mean difference (MD) and its p-value. Results: Twelve RCTs were included for qualitative analysis and nine RCTs, which yielded 6778 patients with depression and 6556 patients with anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic, were included for quantitative analysis. Despite high heterogeneity, all studies had a low risk of bias. Pre- and post-iCBT intervention in the depression forest plot depicts a significant effect (p < 0.00001) with a pooled MD of 4.73 (95% CI: 4.55−4.90), while the pre- and post-iCBT intervention depicts a significant effect (p < 0.00001) with a pooled MD of 4.50 (95% CI: 4.34−4.67). This demonstrates that iCBT was found to significantly decrease depression and anxiety scores in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, substantial heterogeneity was also found (I2 = 93%; p < 0.00001 and I2 = 90%) for the pre-/post-depression and anxiety forest plots, respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis comprises an evidence-based result for iCBT to treat depression and anxiety in the COVID-19 population, as indicated by the significantly lower assessment scores. Delivering iCBT in this situation needs to be considered more extensively, as it has promising results and yields the benefits of technological advancement in psychotherapy.

Exploring the efficacy of psychological treatments for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

In the past four decades, over 700 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 80 meta-analyses have examined the efficacy of psychological treatments for depression. Overwhelming evidence suggests that all types of psychological treatments are effective. Yet, many aspects are still unexplored. Meta-analysts could perform hundreds of potential meta-analyses with the current literature, and a comprehensive bird's-eye view of all published studies is missing. This protocol outlines how a multiverse meta-analysis can evaluate the entire body of the literature on psychological treatments of depression in a single analysis. Thereby, gaps of evidence and areas of robustness are highlighted.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct systematic literature searches in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up until 1 January 2021. We will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment with a control condition. We will include studies published in English, German, Spanish or Dutch, and exclude trials on maintenance and relapse prevention as well as dissertations. Two independent researchers will check all records. All self-reported and clinician-rated instruments measuring depression are included. We will extract information on recruitment settings, target groups, age groups, comorbidity, intervention formats, psychotherapy types, number of sessions, control conditions and country. Two independent researchers will assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. As part of the multiverse meta-analysis, unweighted, fixed effect and random effects models will be calculated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As we will not collect any primary data, an ethical approval of this protocol is not required. We will publish the results in a peer-review journal and present them at international conferences. We will follow open science practices and provide our code and data.

Parenting Style and Adolescent Mental Health: The Chain Mediating Effects of Self-Esteem and Psychological Inflexibility

Based on interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory, family systems theory, and psychological inflexibility theory, this study aimed to examine the mediating roles of a protective factor (self-esteem) and a risk factor (psychological inflexibility) on the influence of parenting style on adolescent mental health. A sample of Chinese adolescents (n = 916, 46% male, mean age = 14.44 years, SD = 1.84 years) completed the Short Egna Minnen Barndoms Uppfostran, the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the Depression Subscale of the Youth Self-Report. Results show that the self-esteem and psychological inflexibility play a chain mediating role in the relationship between parenting style and adolescent mental health. Specifically, parental emotional warmth had a positive effect on adolescent mental health through the chain mediating effects of self-esteem and psychological inflexibility. Parental rejection and parental over-protection had negative effects on adolescent mental health by lowering self-esteem but increasing psychological inflexibility. These results provide further guidance in the prevention of and intervention in adolescent mental health problems.

Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions among older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to examine available evidence concerning the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in improving memory, executive function, depression and activities of daily living (ADL) in older adults with MCI.

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were used to conduct a comprehensive literature search for published and unpublished studies. A primary outcome was cognitive function, including memory and executive function. Secondary outcomes were depression and ADL. Two researchers independently appraised quality of included studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis, heterogeneity test, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Ten studies (out of 1,265 records) were included in this review. Psychosocial interventions contributed to a significant improvement in memory, not executive function, depression and ADL. Subgroup analyses suggested that interventions with a longer duration, more therapeutic sessions, and individual format had larger effect sizes. Strategies found to enhance memory entailed behavior modification and activation, memory training, visual imagery, storytelling, memory aids, journaling, and exercise.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare providers may offer psychosocial interventions to client with MCI in clinical settings. Higher quality trials should be conducted to increase solid evidence in this domain.

Clinical interventions for adults with comorbid alcohol use and depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of treatments for patients diagnosed with both an alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depressive disorder. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions for improving symptoms of adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical interventions for adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level information and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, used frequentist random effects models for network meta-analyses, and rated our confidence in effect estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary outcomes were remission from depression and alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, alcohol use, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes to estimate intervention effects. Overall, 36 RCTs with 2,729 participants evaluated 14 pharmacological and 4 psychological interventions adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). Studies were published from 1971 to 2019, conducted in 13 countries, and had a median sample size of 50 participants (range: 14 to 350 participants). We have very low confidence in all estimates of intervention effects on our primary outcomes (i.e., remission from depression and remission from alcohol use). We have moderate confidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) demonstrated greater benefit than no additional treatment (SMD = -0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -0.63; p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and low confidence (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; p = 0.021) for alcohol use. We have low confidence that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) demonstrated greater benefit than placebo (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02, p = 0.038) for depressive symptoms. Compared with placebo, we have moderate confidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated greater benefit for functional status (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47, p < 0.001) and low confidence for alcohol use (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.039). However, we have moderate confidence that patients receiving SSRIs also were more likely to experience an adverse event (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 5.16, p = 0.07). We have very low confidence in all other effect estimates, and we did not have high confidence in any effect estimates. Limitations include the sparsity of evidence on intervention effects over the long term, risks of attrition bias, and heterogeneous definitions of adverse events in the evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the existence (or not) of any non-null effects for our primary outcomes of remission from depression and remission from alcohol use. The available evidence does suggest that CBTs likely reduced, and TCAs may have resulted in a slight reduction of depressive symptoms. SSRIs likely increased functional status, and SSRIs and CBTs may have resulted in a slight reduction of alcohol use. However, patients receiving SSRIs also likely had an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event. In addition, these conclusions only apply to postintervention and are not against active comparators, limiting the understanding of the efficacy of interventions in the long term as well as the comparative effectiveness of active treatments. As we did not have high confidence in any outcomes, additional studies are warranted to provide more conclusive evidence.

Bi-directional association between depression and HF: An electronic health records-based cohort study

Objective:

To determine whether a bi-directional relationship exists between depression and HF within a single population of individuals receiving primary care services, using longitudinal electronic health records (EHRs).

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study utilized EHRs for adults who received primary care services within a large healthcare system in 2006. Validated EHR-based algorithms identified 10,649 people with depression (depression cohort) and 5,911 people with HF (HF cohort) between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2018. Each person with depression or HF was matched 1:1 with an unaffected referent on age, sex, and outpatient service use. Each cohort (with their matched referents) was followed up electronically to identify newly diagnosed HF (in the depression cohort) and depression (in the HF cohort) that occurred after the index diagnosis of depression or HF, respectively. The risks of these outcomes were compared (vs. referents) using marginal Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for 16 comorbid chronic conditions.

Results:

2,024 occurrences of newly diagnosed HF were observed in the depression cohort and 944 occurrences of newly diagnosed depression were observed in the HF cohort over approximately 4–6 years of follow-up. People with depression had significantly increased risk for developing newly diagnosed HF (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.89–2.28) and people with HF had a significantly increased risk of newly diagnosed depression (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.17–1.54) after adjusting for all 16 comorbid chronic conditions.

Conclusion:

These results provide evidence of a bi-directional relationship between depression and HF independently of age, sex, and multimorbidity from chronic illnesses.

A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial of Different Treatment Regimens for Melancholic Depression

BACKGROUND

Fluoxetine, bupropion, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and physical therapies (modified electroconvulsive treatment or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) can be used to manage melancholic depression.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of various treatments in patients with melancholic depression.

METHODS

This was a preliminary multicenter randomized controlled trial that included patients with depression in their first or recurrent acute episode between September 2016 and June 2019, and randomized to fluoxetine, fluoxetine+CBT, fluoxetine+bupropion, and fluoxetine+bupropion+brain stimulation. The primary endpoint was the decrease in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (17-HDRS). The secondary endpoint included the scores from the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR), QOL-6, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. The follow-ups were performed at the end of the 0th, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 12th weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Finally, 113 patients were included in the analyses: fluoxetine (n=37), fluoxetine+CBT (n=27), fluoxetine+bupropion (n=34), and fluoxetine+bupropion+brain stimulation (n=15). The 17-HDRS and QIDS-SR scores decreased in all four groups (all P<0.05). There were no differences in the 17-HDRS scores among the four groups at the end of treatment (P=0.779), except for fluoxetine alone showing a better response regarding self-consciousness than fluoxetine+bupropion. The QOL-6 scores increased in all four groups. The occurrence of AEs among the four groups showed no significant difference (P=0.053).

CONCLUSION

This preliminary trial suggests that all four interventions (fluoxetine, fluoxetine+CBT, fluoxetine+bupropion, and fluoxetine+bupropion+brain stimulation) achieved similar response and remission rates in patients with melancholic depression, but that fluoxetine had a better effect on self-consciousness than fluoxetine+bupropion. The safety profile was manageable.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults with non-communicable diseases

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. The co-existence of depression and NCDs may affect health behaviours, compliance with treatment, physiological factors, and quality of life. This in turn is associated with worse outcomes for both conditions. Behavioural activation is not currently indicated for the treatment of depression in this population in the UK, but is increasingly being used to treat depression in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with any control group for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with each control group separately (no treatment, waiting list, other psychological therapy, pharmacological treatment, or any other type of treatment as usual) for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CCMD-CTR, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers on 4 October 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for depression in participants with NCDs, together with grey literature and reference checking. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in adults with one of four NCDs: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. Only participants with a formal diagnosis of both depression and an NCD were eligible. Studies were included if behavioural activation was the main component of the intervention. We included studies with any comparator that was not behavioural activation, and regardless of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, including independent screening of titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies, contributing data from 181 participants to the analyses. Both studies recruited participants from US hospital clinics; one included people who were recovering from a stroke and the other women with breast cancer. For both studies, the intervention consisted of eight weeks of face-to-face behavioural therapy, with one study comparing to poststroke treatment as usual and the other comparing to problem-solving therapy. Both studies were at risk of performance bias and potential conflict of interest arising from author involvement in the development of the intervention. For one study, risks of selection bias and reporting bias were unclear and the study was judged at high risk of attrition bias. Treatment efficacy (remission) was greater for behavioural activation than for comparators in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 2.38; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.08; moderate-certainty evidence), but these estimates lacked precision and effects were reduced in the long term (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.23; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in treatment acceptability in the short term (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.82) and medium term (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.10) (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in depression symptoms between behavioural activation and comparators (short term: MD -1.15, 95% CI -2.71 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence). One study found no difference for quality of life (short term: MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence), functioning (short term: MD 2.70, 95% CI -6.99 to 12.39; low-certainty evidence), and anxiety symptoms (short term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -4.50 to 1.10; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported data on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review was not sufficient to draw conclusions on the efficacy and acceptability of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. A future review may wish to include, or focus on, studies of people with subthreshold depression or depression symptoms without a formal diagnosis, as this may inform whether behavioural activation could be used to treat mild or undiagnosed (or both) depressive symptoms in people with NCDs. Evidence from low-resource settings including low- and middle-income countries, for which behavioural activation may offer a feasible alternative to other treatments for depression, would be of interest.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Behavioural activation is a brief psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to change the way a person interacts with their environment. Behavioural activation is increasingly receiving attention as a potentially cost-effective intervention for depression, which may require less resources and may be easier to deliver and implement than other types of psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with other psychological therapies for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with medication for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/placebo no treatment for depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CCMD-CTR (all available years), CENTRAL (current issue), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards), Ovid EMBASE (1980 onwards), and Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards) on the 17 January 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 'behavioural activation', or the main elements of behavioural activation for depression in participants with clinically diagnosed depression or subthreshold depression. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches. We searched international trials registries via the World Health Organization's trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression or symptoms of depression in adults aged 18 or over. We excluded RCTs conducted in inpatient settings and with trial participants selected because of a physical comorbidity. Studies were included regardless of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments were also performed by two review authors in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with 5495 participants were included; 51 parallel group RCTs and two cluster-RCTs. We found moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation had greater short-term efficacy than treatment as usual (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 7 RCTs, 1533 participants), although this difference was no longer evident in sensitivity analyses using a worst-case or intention-to-treat scenario. Compared with waiting list, behavioural activation may be more effective, but there were fewer data in this comparison and evidence was of low certainty (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.09; 1 RCT, 26 participants). No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for behavioural activation versus placebo and behavioural activation versus no treatment. We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment efficacy between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 601 participants). Fewer data were available for other comparators. No evidence of a difference in short term-efficacy was found between behavioural activation and third-wave CBT (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 98 participants; low certainty), and psychodynamic therapy (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99; 1 RCT,60 participants; very low certainty). Behavioural activation was more effective than humanistic therapy (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.95; 2 RCTs, 46 participants; low certainty) and medication (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.76; 1 RCT; 141 participants; moderate certainty), but both of these results were based on a small number of trials and participants. No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for comparisons between behavioural activation versus interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapies. There was moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation might have lower treatment acceptability (based on dropout rate) than treatment as usual in the short term, although the data did not confirm a difference and results lacked precision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31; 14 RCTs, 2518 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence did not suggest any difference in short-term acceptability between behavioural activation and waiting list (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93; 8 RCTs. 359 participants), no treatment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.09; 3 RCTs, 187 participants), medication (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; 2 RCTs, 243 participants), or placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67; 1 RCT; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). No evidence on treatment acceptability was available comparing behavioural activation versus psychodynamic therapy. Low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (dropout rate) between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 12 RCTs, 1195 participants), third-wave CBT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, 147 participants); humanistic therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.55; 2 RCTs, 96 participants) (very low certainty), and interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, 123 participants). Results from medium- and long-term primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are summarised in the text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that behavioural activation may be more effective than humanistic therapy, medication, and treatment as usual, and that it may be no less effective than CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or being placed on a waiting list. However, our confidence in these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (based on dropouts) between behavioural activation and most comparison groups (CBT, humanistic therapy, waiting list, placebo, medication, no treatment or treatment as usual). Again, our confidence in all these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. No data were available about the efficacy of behaioural activation compared with placebo, or about treatment acceptability comparing behavioural activation and psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal, cognitive analytic and integrative therapies. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and better quality RCTs of behavioural activation and by assessing working mechanisms of behavioural activation.

Do Cochrane reviews reflect the latest evidence on meditation and mindfulness-based interventions? A snapshot of the current evidence

Growing evidence emphasizes the importance of meditation and mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in clinical settings. Here, we attempted to determine the clinical issues targeted by Cochrane reviews of meditation and MBIs and whether the judgements about quality/certainty as expressed by the Cochrane authors differed from that of non-Cochrane reviews and guidelines. The search database was the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the search date was December 31, 2019. Screening and selection of reviews was carried out by two independent authors. Overall, 20 reviews and four protocols were selected for this study. The effects of meditation and/or MBIs on various conditions described in the Cochrane reviews seemed ambiguous, with the exception of mindfulness-based stress reduction in breast cancer patients. However, we found some international clinical practice guidelines and latest non-Cochrane reviews describing meditation and MBIs to be more comprehensive and favorable. This gap is likely due to the priority-setting issues, which resulted in a lack of latest up-to-date evidence, as well as gaps in interventions of interest between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

Responding to global stimulant use: challenges and opportunities

We did a global review to synthesise data on the prevalence, harms, and interventions for stimulant use, focusing specifically on the use of cocaine and amphetamines. Modelling estimated the effect of cocaine and amphetamine use on mortality, suicidality, and blood borne virus incidence. The estimated global prevalence of cocaine use was 0·4% and amphetamine use was 0·7%, with dependence affecting 16% of people who used cocaine and 11% of those who used amphetamine. Stimulant use was associated with elevated mortality, increased incidence of HIV and hepatitis C infection, poor mental health (suicidality, psychosis, depression, and violence), and increased risk of cardiovascular events. No effective pharmacotherapies are available that reduce stimulant use, and the available psychosocial interventions (except for contingency management) had a weak overall effect. Generic approaches can address mental health and blood borne virus infection risk if better tailored to mitigate the harms associated with stimulant use. Substantial and sustained investment is needed to develop more effective interventions to reduce stimulant use.

Mental health outcomes associated with of the use of amphetamines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of amphetamines is a global public health concern. We summarise global data on use of amphetamines and mental health outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD 42017081893). We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo for methamphetamine or amphetamine combined with psychosis, violence, suicidality, depression or anxiety. Included studies were human empirical cross-sectional surveys, case-control studies, cohort studies and randomised controlled trials that assessed the association between methamphetamine and one of the mental health outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool results for any use of amphetamines and amphetamine use disorders.

FINDINGS

149 studies were eligible and 59 were included in meta-analyses. There was significant heterogeneity in effects. Evidence came mostly from cross-sectional studies. Any use of amphetamines was associated with higher odds of psychosis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.0, 95%CI 1.3-3.3), violence (OR = 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1; adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.4, 95%CI 0.8-2.4), suicidality OR = 4.4, 95%CI 2.4-8.2; AOR = 1.7, 95%CI 1.0-2.9) and depression (OR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.2; AOR = 1.3, 95%CI 1.2-1.4). Having an amphetamine use disorder was associated with higher odds of psychosis (OR = 3.0, 95%CI 1.9-4.8; AOR = 2.4, 95%CI 1.6-3.5), violence (OR = 6.2, 95%CI 3.1-12.3), and suicidality (OR = 2.3, 95%CI 1.8-2.9; AOR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8).

INTERPRETATION

Methamphetamine use is an important risk factor for poor mental health. High quality population-level studies are needed to more accurately quantify this risk. Clinical responses to methamphetamine use need to address mental health harms.

The process and delivery of CBT for depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depressed adults. CBT interventions are complex, as they include multiple content components and can be delivered in different ways. We compared the effectiveness of different types of therapy, different components and combinations of components and aspects of delivery used in CBT interventions for adult depression. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials in adults with a primary diagnosis of depression, which included a CBT intervention. Outcomes were pooled using a component-level network meta-analysis. Our primary analysis classified interventions according to the type of therapy and delivery mode. We also fitted more advanced models to examine the effectiveness of each content component or combination of components. We included 91 studies and found strong evidence that CBT interventions yielded a larger short-term decrease in depression scores compared to treatment-as-usual, with a standardised difference in mean change of -1.11 (95% credible interval -1.62 to -0.60) for face-to-face CBT, -1.06 (-2.05 to -0.08) for hybrid CBT, and -0.59 (-1.20 to 0.02) for multimedia CBT, whereas wait list control showed a detrimental effect of 0.72 (0.09 to 1.35). We found no evidence of specific effects of any content components or combinations of components. Technology is increasingly used in the context of CBT interventions for depression. Multimedia and hybrid CBT might be as effective as face-to-face CBT, although results need to be interpreted cautiously. The effectiveness of specific combinations of content components and delivery formats remain unclear. Wait list controls should be avoided if possible.

Comparing the Efficacy of CBASP with Two Versions of CBT for Depression in a Routine Care Center: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The cognitive-behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP) was developed for the treatment of chronic, early-onset depression. However, it is unclear whether this approach can be recommended for depression in general (episodic and chronic), and no direct comparisons between CBASP with different versions of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) exist.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial compared 3 treatment conditions (all lasting 16 sessions) with a waiting list group (WL): CBASP, CBT with a focus on physical exercise (CBT-E), and CBT with a focus on pleasurable, low-energy and mindful activities (CBT-M). We included 173 patients and involved 41 therapists. Assessments were at baseline, after session 8, and at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Our primary outcome Beck Depression Inventory-II indicated a general advantage of the CBT arms compared to CBASP [F(6, 154.5) = 4.2, p = 0.001], with significant contrasts in particular in favor of CBT-E. Effect sizes against WL were d = 0.91 (CBT-E), 0.87 (CBT-M), and 0.47 (CBASP). A triple interaction with an additional factor "chronic versus episodic depression" [F(6, 142.7) = 2.2, p = 0.048] indicated that the treatments resulted in different outcomes, with best results again for CBT-E in particular in episodic depression. Responder rates indicated significant improvements (56% in both CBT arms, 34% in the CBASP arm, 3.4% in WL; intention-to-treat samples). As compared to CBASP, response rates were significantly higher for CBT-E (OR = 2.48; 95% CI = 1.02-6.00) and CBT-M (OR = 2.46; 95% CI = 1.01-6.01).

CONCLUSIONS

CBASP was more effective than WL, but less effective than the 2 CBT arms. This was mainly caused by an advantage of CBT interventions in episodic depression.

Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults: a systematic review protocol (METACOG)

INTRODUCTION

Whereas the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy has been demonstrated for a variety of mental disorders, there is still need for improvement, especially regarding less prevalent or more severe disorders. Recently, metacognitive interventions have been developed and are now available for a variety of diagnoses. Still, a systematic review investigating the effectiveness of different metacognitive interventions for various mental disorders is missing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over and cluster RCTs and non-randomised controlled trials on metacognitive interventions (ie, metacognitive therapy, metacognitive training, others) in adults with any mental disorder will be included. As comparators, another psychological or pharmacological treatment, a combined psychological and pharmacological treatment, treatment as usual or no active treatment are eligible. Outcomes refer to efficacy and acceptability of metacognitive interventions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In light of the popularity of metacognitive interventions, the systematic review will provide researchers, clinicians and patients with substantial information on the intervention's effectiveness across different mental disorders. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through a patient workshop.

Long-term effects of Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in primary care - the PRIM-NET controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) is recommended as an efficient treatment alternative for depression in primary care. However, only few previous studies have been conducted at primary care centers (PCCs). We evaluated long-term effects of ICBT treatment for depression compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in primary care settings.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Patients were enrolled at16 PCCs in south-west Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients attending PCCs and diagnosed with depression (n = 90).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assessed by a primary care psychologist/psychotherapist and randomized to ICBT or TAU. The ICBT included an ICBT program consisting of seven modules and weekly therapist e-mail or telephone support during the 3-month treatment period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Questionnaires on depressive symptoms (BDI-II), quality of life (EQ-5D) and psychological distress (GHQ-12) were administered at baseline, with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months. Antidepressants and sedatives use, sick leave and PCC contacts were registered.

RESULTS

Intra-individual change in depressive symptoms did not differ between the ICBT group and the TAU group during the treatment period or across the follow-up periods. At 3-month follow-up, significantly fewer patients in ICBT were on antidepressants. However, the difference leveled out at later follow-ups. There were no differences between the groups concerning psychological distress, sick leave or quality of life, except for a larger improvement in quality of life in the TAU group during the 0- to 6-month period.

CONCLUSIONS

ICBT with weekly minimal therapist support in primary care can be equally effective as TAU among depressed patients also over a 12-month period.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Swedish Registry, researchweb.org, ID number 30511.

Psychological treatments for mental disorders in adults: A review of the evidence of leading international organizations

Most mental health services throughout the world currently regard evidence-based psychological treatments as best practice for the treatment of mental disorders. The aim of this study was to analyze evidence-based treatments drawn from RCTs, reviews, meta-analyses, guides, and lists provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) of the American Psychological Association (APA), Cochrane and the Australian Psychological Society (APS) in relation to mental disorders in adults. A total of 135 treatments were analyzed for 23 mental disorders and compared to determine the level of agreement among the organizations. The results indicate that, in most cases, there is little agreement among organizations and that there are several discrepancies within certain disorders. These results require reflection on the meaning attributed to evidence-based practice with regard to psychological treatments. The possible reasons for these differences are discussed. Based on these findings, proposals to unify the criteria that reconcile the realities of clinical practice with a scientific perspective were analyzed.

Disability and recovery in schizophrenia: a systematic review of cognitive behavioral therapy interventions

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling disease that impacts all major life areas. There is a growing need for meeting the challenge of disability from a perspective that extends symptomatic reduction. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the extent to which traditional and "third wave" cognitive - behavioral (CBT) interventions address the whole scope of disabilities experienced by people with lived experience of schizophrenia using the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a frame of reference. It also explores if current CBT interventions focus on recovery and what is their impact on disability domains.

METHODS

Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies published in English between January 2009 and December 2015. Abstracts and full papers were screened against pre-defined selection criteria by two reviewers. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed by two independent raters using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies (EPHPP) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 50 studies were included, 35 studies evaluating traditional CBT interventions and 15 evaluating "third wave" approaches. Overall, traditional CBT interventions addressed more disability domains than "third wave" approaches and mostly focused on mental functions reflecting schizophrenia psychopathology. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria of recovery-oriented interventions. The majority of studies evaluating these interventions had however a high risk of bias, therefore evidence on their effectiveness is inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional CBT interventions address more disability domains than "third wave" therapies, however both approaches focus mostly on mental functions that reflect schizophrenia psychopathology. There are also few interventions that focus on recovery. These results indicate that CBT interventions going beyond symptom reduction are still needed. Recovery-focused CBT interventions seem to be a promising treatment approach as they target disability from a broader perspective including activity and participation domains. Although their effectiveness is inconclusive, they reflect users' views of recovery and trends towards improvement of mood, negative symptoms and functioning are shown.

Non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Following traumatic brain injury (TBI) there is an increased prevalence of depression compared to the general population. It is unknown whether non-pharmacological interventions for depression are effective for people with TBI.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with TBI at reducing the diagnosis and severity of symptoms of depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the most recent search on 11 February 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases and clinical trials registers. Relevant conference proceedings and journals were handsearched, as were the reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children who had a TBI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials from the search results, then assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included trials. The authors contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information. We rated the overall quality of the evidence of the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 334 adult participants. We identified no studies that included children as participants. All studies were affected by high risk of bias due to a lack of blinding of participants and personnel; five studies were affected by high risk of bias for lack of blinding of outcome assessors. There was high or unclear risk of biases affecting some studies across all the Cochrane risk of bias measures.Three studies compared a psychological intervention (either cognitive behaviour therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) with a control intervention. Data regarding depression symptom outcome measures were combined in a meta-analysis, but did not find an effect in favour of treatment (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.19; Z = 0.83; P = 0.41). The other comparisons comprised of single studies of depression symptoms and compared; cognitive behaviour therapy versus supportive psychotherapy (SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.48; Z = 0.30; P = 0.77); repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation plus tricyclic antidepressant (rTMS + TCA) versus tricyclic antidepressant alone (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.32; Z = 3;19, P = 0.001); and a supervised exercise program versus exercise as usual (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.03; Z = 1.84; P = 0.07). There was very-low quality evidence, small effect sizes and wide variability of results, suggesting that no comparisons showed a reliable effect for any intervention.Only one study mentioned minor, transient adverse events from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review did not find compelling evidence in favour of any intervention. Future studies should focus on participants with a diagnosed TBI and include only participants who have a diagnosis of depression, or who record scores above a clinical cutoff on a depression measure. There is a need for additional RCTs that include a comparison between an intervention and a control that replicates the effect of the attention given to participants during an active treatment.

A longitudinal study of experiential avoidance in emotional disorders

The aim of this study was to examine the degree in which measurements of trait experiential avoidance (EA) are affected by current emotional disorder and whether EA is a causal factor in the course of emotional disorders (anxiety and depressive disorders) and the development of comorbidity among emotional disorders. In a sample of 2,316 adults aged 18 to 65, consisting of healthy controls, persons with a prior history of emotional disorders, and persons with a current emotional disorder, DSM-IV-based emotional disorders (CIDI: Composite Interview Diagnostic Instrument) were assessed at T2 and 2 (T4) and 4years later (T6) and experiential avoidance (AAQ: Acceptance and Action Questionnaire) at T2 and T4. Results showed that EA scores were stable over a 2-year period notwithstanding state fluctuations because of current emotional disorder. Moreover, EA scores at T2 predicted changes in distress (major depressive disorder, dysthymia, generalized anxiety disorder) and in fear disorders (social anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, agoraphobia without panic) at T4. Finally, EA at T4 mediated the longitudinal association of fear disorders at T2 with distress disorders at T6 as well as of distress disorders at T2 with fear disorders at T6. These findings suggest that EA scores are more than epiphenomena of emotional disorders and that EA may be conceptualized as a relevant transdiagnostic factor affecting the course and development of comorbidity of emotional disorders.

Metacognitive therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a randomized pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Metacognitive therapy (MCT) is one of the newer developments within cognitive therapy. This randomized controlled pilot study compared independently applied MCT with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in outpatients with depression to explore the relative speed and efficacy of MCT, ahead of a planned randomized controlled trial.

METHOD

A total of 48 participants referred for outpatient therapy were randomized to up to 12 weeks of MCT or CBT. Key outcomes were reduction in depressive symptoms at week 4 and week 12, measured using the independent-clinician-rated Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology16. Intention-to-treat and completer analyses as well as additional methods of reporting outcome of depression are presented.

RESULTS

Both therapies were effective in producing clinically significant change in depressive symptoms, with moderate-to-large effect sizes obtained. No differences were detected between therapies in overall outcome or early change on clinician-rated or self-reported measures. Post-hoc analyses suggest that MCT may have been adversely affected by greater comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large pilot study conducted independently of MCT's developers, MCT was an effective treatment for outpatients with depression, with similar results overall to CBT. Insufficient power and imbalanced comorbidity limit conclusions regarding comparative efficacy so further studies of MCT and CBT are required.