Psychological treatment of depression in institutional settings: A meta-analytic review

Amount and frequency of psychotherapy as predictors of treatment outcome for adult depression: A meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether the amount and frequency of psychotherapy is associated with treatment effects for adult depression. We investigated whether a number of indicators of the amount and frequency of psychotherapy were related to the treatment effects in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing individual, face-to-face psychotherapy to a control group (e.g., care-as-usual [CAU] or waitlist condition [WL]).

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched, and meta-regression analyses conducted to assess the relationship between the effect size (Hedges' g) of the treatment and number of sessions, duration of psychotherapy, total contact time with the therapist, and number of sessions per week.

RESULTS

We included 176 studies (210 comparisons) with 15,158 participants. We did not find a relationship between the effect size, and number of sessions, or total contact time. There was a small negative association between duration of treatment and the effect size, an additional week of treatment was related to a 0.014 decrease in the effect size. In addition, there was a strong association between number of sessions per week and the effect size, an increase from one to two sessions per week was related to an effect size higher by 0.596. Both associations were no longer significant when controlling for characteristics of studies.

LIMITATIONS

The current findings are correlational, future research should thus address this question in an RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

We should deliver brief therapies, and thus shorten waiting lists. More sessions, if necessary, should be delivered with higher frequency and over a shorter period of time.

Behavioral activation for depression in groups embedded in psychosomatic rehabilitation inpatient treatment: a quasi-randomized controlled study

Background

Behavioral activation (BA) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have shown to be efficacious treatment methods for depression. Previous studies focused mostly on the outpatient treatment either in group or individual setting. The present study aimed at comparing the efficacy of group treatment BA vs. CBT, when embedded in inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation treatment.

Methods

375 inpatients were randomly assigned to either BA (N = 174) or CBT (N = 201). We used established scales for depression such as the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II, self-rating), the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS; expert rating) and the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS) to assess changes over the course of the treatment and at follow-up (4 to 6 months). In addition, we measured disability-related functioning with the Mini-ICF-APP, a rating scale built in reference to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Multilevel models with repeated measures were conducted to examine the differences between groups in relation to change over time with patients' random effects.

Results

Both group formats showed substantial reduction in depressive symptoms at the end of treatment (d= 0.83 BA vs. d= 1.08 CBT; BDI-II) and at follow-up after 4 to 6 months (d = 0.97 BA vs. d = 1.33 CBT, BDI-II; and d = 1.17 BA vs. d = 1.09 CBT, QIDS). There were no significant differences between treatment approaches. At least 50% symptom reduction was achieved by 53.7% and 54.2% in BA vs. CBT respectively. Reported activation levels increased from pre- to posttreatment (d = 0.76 BA vs. d = 0.70CBT), while showing loss of increment between the end of the treatment until follow up in both formats (d = 0.28 BA vs. d = 0.29 CBT).

Discussion

Both modalities led to significant improvement of symptomatology and functioning at the end of the treatment and at follow-up, thus for the first time demonstrating the practicability of BA in rehabilitation clinics. Considering its lower requirements regarding cognitive abilities and its easier implementation, BA proved to be a good alternative to other psychotherapeutic treatments.

Non-directive supportive therapy for depression: A meta-analytic review

BACKGROUND

Non-directive supportive therapy (NDST) is an important treatment of adult depression, but no recent meta-analysis has integrated the randomized trials examining its effects.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis comparing NDST to control conditions and to other therapies, by using an existing database of randomized trials of psychological treatments of depression in adults. This database was built through searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

48 randomized controlled trials (5075 participants), with 20 comparisons between NDST and a control group and 49 comparisons between NDST and another psychotherapy were included. Random effects meta-analyses found an effect size of NDST compared with control conditions of g = 0.53 (95 % CI, 0.34; 0.72) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 51; 95 % CI: 18; 71; PI = -0.02 to 1.09). NDST was less effective than other therapies (g = -0.21; 95 % CI: -0.31; -0.11). The difference with other therapies was significantly larger in studies in which NDST was used as a control group (p = .003). There was no significant difference between NDST and other therapies in which NDST was not used as a control group (k = 14; g = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.17; 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

NDST probably is an effective treatment of depression. The effects may be somewhat smaller than those of other therapies, but that may also be an artefact, because NDST is often used as a control group and may be designed as an "intent-to-fail" intervention in some studies.

Psychotherapy for adult depression in low- and middle-income countries: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Previous meta-analyses on psychotherapy for adult depression have found a larger treatment effect in non-Western trials compared to Western trials (i.e. North America, Europe, and Australia). However, factors contributing to this difference remain unclear. This study investigated different study characteristics between Western and non-Western trials and examined their association with effect size estimates. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (01-09-2022). We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that compared psychotherapy with a control condition. The validity of included RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 1). Effect sizes were pooled using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also conducted. We identified 405 eligible trials, among which 105 trials (117 comparisons, 16 304 participants) were from non-Western countries. We confirmed that non-Western trials had a larger treatment effect (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.90-1.31) than Western trials (g = 0.57, 95% CI 0.52-0.62). Trials from non-Western countries also had more usual care controls, higher risk of bias, larger sample sizes, lower mean ages, younger adults, more group-based interventions, and other recruitment methods (e.g. systematic screening; p < 0.05). The larger effect sizes found in non-Western trials were related to the presence of wait-list controls, high risk of bias, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and clinician-diagnosed depression (p < 0.05). The larger treatment effects observed in non-Western trials may result from the high heterogeneous study design and relatively low validity. Further research on long-term effects, adolescent groups, and individual-level data are still needed.

Psychological treatment of depression: A systematic overview of a 'Meta-Analytic Research Domain'

BACKGROUND

Over the past 16 years, we have developed a 'Meta-analytic Research Domain' (MARD) of all randomized trials of psychological treatments of depression. A MARD is a living systematic review of a research field, that cannot be otherwise covered by one (network) meta-analysis and includes multiple PICOs. In this paper we give an overview of the findings of this MARD.

METHODS

A narrative review of the results of the 118 meta-analyses on psychotherapies for depression that were published within our MARD.

RESULTS

Most research has been conducted on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), but several other psychotherapies are also effective, with few differences between therapies. They can be effectively delivered in individual, group, telephone and guided self-help format and are effective in many different target groups and across different age groups, although the effects are significantly smaller in children and adolescents. Psychotherapies have comparable effects as pharmacotherapy at the short term but are probably more effective at the longer term. Combined treatment is more effective than either psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy alone at the short, but also at the longer term.

LIMITATIONS

We did not summarize all published meta-analyses (protocols, methodological studies) and have not compared our results to those found in other meta-analyses on comparable subjects.

CONCLUSION

Psychotherapies can contribute considerably to a reduction of the disease burden of depression. MARDs are an important next step in the aggregation of knowledge from randomized controlled trials in psychological treatments of depression as well as in other healthcare sectors.

Does the use of pharmacotherapy interact with the effects of psychotherapy? A meta-analytic review

BACKGROUND

It is not clear if there is an interaction between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. First, there may be no interaction at all, meaning that the effects of both are independent of each other. Second, antidepressants may reduce the effects of psychotherapy, and third, antidepressants may increase the effects of psychotherapy. We examined which of the three is correct.

METHODS

We conducted random effects meta-analyses of randomized trials comparing psychotherapies for adult depression with control conditions. The proportion of users of antidepressants was used as a predictor of the effect size in a series of meta-regression analyses, while adjusting for relevant moderators, such as type of control group and baseline severity.

RESULTS

We included 300 randomized controlled trials (353 comparisons between treatment and control; 32,852 participants). The main effect size of psychotherapy was g = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64; 0.79) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 82; 95% CI: 80; 84). We found no significant association between the proportion of antidepressants users and effect size (p = .07). We did find a significant association with some other predictors, including the type of control group and risk of bias. The use of antidepressants was associated with higher response rates within the control conditions, but not with the relative effects of the treatments compared to the control groups.

DISCUSSION

We found support for the independent effects of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, which is good news from a clinical perspective. Apparently, patients can start with psychotherapy and do not have to be afraid that this will reduce the effects of the therapy.

[Inpatient psychotherapy of depressive disorders: options and challenges]

BACKGROUND

The psychotherapy of depressive disorders has become established as a central component of inpatient treatment in psychiatric and psychosomatic hospitals and furthermore constitutes an important component of the residency training in Germany; however, the number of studies examining the effectiveness and efficacy is limited.

METHODS

This narrative review summarizes the current state of research on inpatient psychotherapy for depressive disorders. The results of meta-analyses as well as practice-based observational studies from routine treatment in Germany, disorder-specific special programs, and side effects of inpatient psychotherapy are summarized.

RESULTS

The number of studies on the efficacy of inpatient psychotherapy of depressive disorders is overall low. The main finding of the largest recent meta-analysis indicates that psychotherapy in clinics and other facilities has a significant effect on depressive symptoms, with small to moderate effect sizes in randomized controlled studies. The effects are mostly maintained even after 9-15 months follow-up. An observational study from routine treatment with a very large sample size reported large pre-post and pre-follow-up effect sizes. It additionally revealed factors that appear to be difficult to change during inpatient psychotherapy, negatively affect treatment success and could be specifically addressed in future trials. Special programs, such as inpatient Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) and the inpatient Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) indicate acceptance and efficacy/effectiveness in an initial randomized controlled (IPT) study and in observational (CBASP) studies. Side effects of inpatient psychotherapy were reported by 60-94% of patients with depressive disorders, whereby a perceived dependence on the therapist or the therapeutic setting was identified as a frequent side effect.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the results of the narrative review reveal that inpatient psychotherapy appears to be meaningful and effective for many patients with depressive disorders. Specific side effects, cost-effectiveness, and the question of differential indications (what works for whom?) should be further investigated.

Cognitive behavior therapy vs. control conditions, other psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and combined treatment for depression: a comprehensive meta-analysis including 409 trials with 52,702 patients

Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is by far the most examined type of psychological treatment for depression and is recommended in most treatment guide-lines. However, no recent meta-analysis has integrated the results of randomized trials examining its effects, and its efficacy in comparison with other psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and combined treatment for depression remains uncertain. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify studies on CBT, and separated included trials into several subsets to conduct random-effects meta-analyses. We included 409 trials (518 comparisons) with 52,702 patients, thus conducting the largest meta-analysis ever of a specific type of psychotherapy for a mental disorder. The quality of the trials was found to have increased significantly over time (with increasing numbers of trials with low risk of bias, less waitlist control groups, and larger sample sizes). CBT had moderate to large effects compared to control conditions such as care as usual and waitlist (g=0.79; 95% CI: 0.70-0.89), which remained similar in sensitivity analyses and were still significant at 6-12 month follow-up. There was no reduction of the effect size of CBT according to the publication year (<2001 vs. 2001-2010 vs. >2011). CBT was significantly more effective than other psychotherapies, but the difference was small (g=0.06; 95% CI: 0-0.12) and became non-significant in most sensitivity analyses. The effects of CBT did not differ significantly from those of pharmacotherapies at the short term, but were significantly larger at 6-12 month follow-up (g=0.34; 95% CI: 0.09-0.58), although the number of trials was small, and the difference was not significant in all sensitivity analyses. Combined treatment was more effective than pharmacotherapies alone at the short (g=0.51; 95% CI: 0.19-0.84) and long term (g=0.32; 95% CI: 0.09-0.55), but it was not more effective than CBT alone at either time point. CBT was also effective as unguided self-help intervention (g=0.45; 95% CI: 0.31-0.60), in institutional settings (g=0.65; 95% CI: 0.21-1.08), and in children and adolescents (g=0.41; 95% CI: 0.25-0.57). We can conclude that the efficacy of CBT in depression is documented across different formats, ages, target groups, and settings. However, the superiority of CBT over other psychotherapies for depression does not emerge clearly from this meta-analysis. CBT appears to be as effective as pharmacotherapies at the short term, but more effective at the longer term.

Brief App-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Symptoms in Psychiatric Inpatients: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Psychiatric inpatients often have limited access to psychotherapeutic education or skills for managing anxiety, a common transdiagnostic concern in severe and acute mental illness. COVID-19–related restrictions further limited access to therapy groups on inpatient psychiatric units. App-based interventions may improve access, but evidence supporting the feasibility of their use, acceptability, and effectiveness in psychiatric inpatient settings is limited. MindShift CBT is a free app based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles with evidence for alleviating anxiety symptoms in the outpatient setting.

Objective

We aimed to recruit 24 participants from an acute general psychiatric inpatient ward to a 1-month randomized control study assessing the feasibility and acceptability of providing patients with severe and acute mental illness access to the MindShift CBT app for help with managing anxiety symptoms.

Methods

Recruitment, data collection, analysis, and interpretation were completed collaboratively by clinician and peer researchers. Inpatients were randomized to two conditions: treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU plus use of the MindShift CBT app over 6 days. We collected demographic and quantitative data on acceptability and usability of the intervention. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were measured in pre- and poststudy surveys for preliminary signals of efficacy. We conducted individual semistructured interviews with participants in the MindShift CBT app group at the end of their trial period, which were interpreted using a standardized protocol for thematic analysis.

Results

Over 4 weeks, 33 inpatients were referred to the study, 24 consented to participate, 20 were randomized, and 11 completed the study. Of the 9 randomized participants who did not complete the study, 7 were withdrawn because they were discharged or transferred prior to study completion, with a similar distribution among both conditions. Among the enrolled patients, 65% (13/20) were admitted for a psychotic disorder and no patient was admitted primarily for an anxiety disorder. The average length of stay was 20 days (SD 4.4; range 3-21) and 35% (7/20) of patients were involuntarily admitted to hospital. Small sample sizes limited accurate interpretation of the efficacy data. Themes emerging from qualitative interviews included acceptability and usability of the app, and patient agency associated with voluntary participation in research while admitted to hospital.

Conclusions

Our study benefitted from collaboration between peer and clinician researchers. Due to rapid patient turnover in the acute inpatient setting, additional flexibility in recruitment and enrollment is needed to determine the efficacy of using app-based psychotherapy on an acute psychiatric ward. Despite the limited sample size, our study suggests that similar interventions may be feasible and acceptable for acutely unwell inpatients. Further study is needed to compare the efficacy of psychotherapeutic apps with existing standards of care in this setting.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04841603; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04841603

Inpatient psychotherapy for depression in a large routine clinical care sample: A Bayesian approach to examining clinical outcomes and predictors of change

BACKGROUND

A routinely collected dataset was analyzed (1) to determine the naturalistic effectiveness of inpatient psychotherapy for depression in routine psychotherapeutic care, and (2) to identify potential predictors of change.

METHODS

In a sample of 22,681 inpatients with depression, pre-post and pre-follow-up effect sizes were computed for various outcome variables. To build a probabilistic model of predictors of change, an independent component analysis generated components from demographic and clinical data, and Bayesian EFA extracted factors from the available pre-test, post-test and follow-up questionnaires in a subsample (N = 6377). To select the best-fitted model, the BIC of different path models were compared. A Bayesian path analysis was performed to identify the most important factors to predict changes.

RESULTS

Effect sizes were large for the primary outcome and moderate for various secondary outcomes. Almost all pretreatment factors exerted significant influences on different baseline factors. Several factors were found to be resistant to change during treatment: suicidality, agoraphobia, life dissatisfaction, physical disability and pain. The strongest cross-loadings were observed from suicidality on negative cognitions, from agoraphobia on anxiety, and from physical disability on perceived disability.

LIMITATIONS

No causal conclusions can be drawn directly from our results as we only used cross-lagged panel data without control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate large effects of inpatient psychotherapy for depression in routine clinical care. The direct influence of pretreatment factors decreased over the course of treatment. However, some factors appeared stable and difficult to treat, which might hinder treatment outcome. Findings of different predictors of change are discussed.