The development and validation of the Memory Support Rating Scale

Cognitive Therapy-as-Usual versus Cognitive Therapy plus the Memory Support Intervention for adults with depression: 12-month outcomes and opportunities for improved efficacy in a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Patient memory for treatment is emerging as an important transdiagnostic mechanism of treatment outcomes. However, patient memory for treatment is limited. The Memory Support Intervention was developed to improve patient memory for treatment and thereby strengthen treatment outcomes. In this secondary analysis, the primary, preregistered aim was to test the 12-month follow-up outcomes of the Memory Support Intervention when used with cognitive therapy (CT + MS) for major depressive disorder, relative to CT-as-usual. The secondary, exploratory aim was to investigate opportunities to improve efficacy of the Memory Support Intervention.

METHOD

Adults (N = 178) with major depressive disorder were randomized to CT-as-usual or CT + MS. Therapist use of memory support and patient memory for treatment, depression symptoms, and overall functioning were measured in blind assessments.

RESULTS

Findings did not support differences between treatment conditions at 12-month follow-up. Therapists used memory support strategies with a narrow subset of treatment contents, and similarly, patients recalled a narrow subset of treatment contents.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight ways to strengthen the efficacy of the Memory Support Intervention, such as applying memory support strategies across a wider variety of treatment contents, which in turn, may boost patient recall and outcomes.

Optimizing outcomes, mechanisms, and recall of Cognitive Therapy for depression: Dose of constructive memory support strategies

OBJECTIVE

Poor memory for treatment is associated with worse patient outcomes. Therapist use of constructive memory support strategies, which help patients actively engage with treatment content, may improve patient memory for treatment. We sought to identify the dose of constructive memory support needed to optimize treatment outcomes, mechanisms, and patient recall.

METHOD

Adults with major depressive disorder (N = 178, mean age = 37.9, 63% female, 17% Hispanic or Latino/a) were randomized to Cognitive Therapy plus a Memory Support Intervention or Cognitive Therapy as usual. Because therapists from both groups used constructive memory support, treatment conditions were combined to maximize data. Depression and overall impairment were assessed before treatment, immediately post-treatment (POST), and six (6FU) and 12 months (12FU) after treatment. Patients completed measures of treatment mechanisms - utilization/competency in Cognitive Therapy skills - and treatment recall at POST, 6FU, and 12FU. Patient adherence to treatment was averaged across sessions.

RESULTS

Using Kaplan-Meier Survival Analyses, the optimal dose of constructive memory support was eight uses per session (sensitivity analysis range: 5-12 uses). Pre-treatment depression symptoms and patient perceptions of treatment may impact the optimal dose.

CONCLUSION

Eight uses of constructive memory support by therapists per session may optimize treatment outcomes, mechanisms, and recall over the long-term.

Serial Mediators of Memory Support Strategies Used With Cognitive Therapy for Depression: Improving Outcomes Through Patient Adherence and Treatment Skills

Patient memory for treatment is poor. Memory support strategies can be integrated within evidence-based psychological treatments to improve patient memory for treatment, and thereby enhance patient outcomes. The present study evaluated possible mechanisms of these memory support strategies. Specifically, we tested whether therapist use of memory support strategies indirectly predicts improved patient outcomes via serial improvements in (a) patient adherence throughout treatment and (b) patient utilization and competency of treatment skills. Adults with major depressive disorder (N = 178, mean age = 37.93, 63% female, 17% Hispanic or Latino) were randomized to Cognitive Therapy plus a Memory Support Intervention or Cognitive Therapy-as-usual. Because therapists from both treatment groups used memory support strategies, data from conditions were combined. Blind assessments of depression severity and overall impairment were conducted before treatment, immediately posttreatment (POST), at 6-month follow-up (6FU), and at 12-month follow-up (12FU). Patient adherence to treatment was rated by therapists and averaged across treatment sessions. Patients completed measures of treatment mechanisms-namely, utilization and competency in cognitive therapy skills-at POST, 6FU, and 12FU. Results of serial mediation models indicated that more therapist use of memory support predicted lower depression severity at POST, 6FU, and 12FU indirectly and sequentially through (a) increased patient adherence during treatment and (b) more utilization and competency of Cognitive Therapy skills at POST, 6FU, and 12FU. The same patterns were found for serial mediation models predicting lower overall impairment at POST, 6FU, and 12FU. Together, boosting memory for treatment may represent a promising means to enhance pantreatment mechanisms (i.e., adherence and treatment skills) as well as patient outcomes.

Measuring Memory for Treatment Using Patient Conceptualizations of Clinical Vignettes: A Pilot Psychometric Study in the Context of Cognitive Therapy for Depression

Background

Patient memory for psychological treatment contents is a promising transdiagnostic mechanism of change, but there is little consensus concerning its measurement. We conducted a pilot psychometric investigation of the Conceptualization Task, a novel measure of patient memory for treatment.

Methods

Data were from a trial comparing cognitive therapy-as-usual to cognitive therapy plus the Memory Support Intervention (MSI) for adults with depression (N = 171). For the Conceptualization Task, patients read clinical vignettes and provided written responses to assess three facets of conceptualization: identifying contributing factors to psychopathology, making intervention recommendations, and providing a rationale for recommendations. Higher scores were given to responses reflecting accurate memory for the theoretical model and change strategies used in treatment.

Results

The Conceptualization Task showed excellent inter-rater reliability and sensitivity to change during treatment, but only fair test–retest reliability and insufficient internal consistency. Findings supported discriminant validity with measures of education, IQ, and general memory functioning, but not convergent validity with existing measures of patient memory for treatment. Criterion validity analyses showed that some aspects of the Conceptualization Task were associated with therapist use of memory support strategies from the MSI and treatment outcome. However, findings were mixed, effect sizes were small, and some results did not remain statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons.

Conclusions

Further refinement and testing is needed before the Conceptualization Task may be used to assess the patient memory for treatment contents.

The Development and Validation of the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist

Patient memory for the contents of treatment is staggeringly poor, and poor memory for treatment is associated with worse treatment outcome. Accordingly, the Memory Support Intervention was developed to improve patient memory for treatment as an adjunct to treatment as usual. As plans to disseminate the Memory Support Intervention are developed, it is important to have efficient, accurate methods of measuring fidelity to the intervention. However, the existing method of assessing fidelity to the Memory Support Intervention, the Memory Support Rating Scale (MSRS), is burdensome and requires trained independent-raters to spend multiple hours reviewing session recordings, which is not feasible in many routine mental health care settings. Hence, a provider-rated measure of fidelity to the MSI has been developed. The goal of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of scores on this measure-the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist. A sample of Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklists (N = 319) were completed by providers (N = 8) treating adults with depression (N = 84). Three metrics of the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist were evaluated: (a) the internal consistency and structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis based on prior research on the MSRS and the Memory Support Intervention, (b) construct validity, and (c) predictive validity. Results indicate that the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist yields reliable and valid scores of fidelity to the Memory Support Intervention. Overall, this checklist offers a viable, brief method of evaluating fidelity to the Memory Support Intervention.

Establishing the dose of memory support to improve patient memory for treatment and treatment outcome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient memory for the contents of treatment sessions is poor and this is associated with worse treatment outcome. Preliminary findings indicate that treatment provider use of memory support can be helpful in enhancing patient memory for treatment and improving outcome. The development of a novel Memory Support Intervention is currently underway. A key step in this process is to establish the dose of memory support that treatment providers deliver in treatment-as-usual, as well as the optimal dose of memory support needed to maximize patient memory for treatment points and outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-two adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) were randomized to receive either cognitive therapy plus memory support (CS + Memory Support; n = 22) or cognitive therapy as-usual (CT-as-usual; n = 20). Patients completed a free recall of treatment points task at post-treatment. Outcome measures were administered at baseline and post-treatment.

RESULTS

Treatment providers delivering CT-as-usual used, on average, 8.39 instances of memory support and 3.40 different types of memory support per session. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses using the combined sample indicate that 12.45 instances of memory support and 3.88 to 4.13 different types of memory support are needed to maximize patient recall and functional outcome.

LIMITATIONS

Dosing recommendations were established using a limited sample of participants receiving cognitive therapy for MDD.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment providers appear to deliver a suboptimal amount of memory support. Delivering the optimal dose of memory support could improve treatment outcome.

Evaluating Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

While existing psychological treatments for depression are effective for many, a significant proportion of depressed individuals do not respond to current approaches and few remain well over the long-term. Anhedonia (a loss of interest or pleasure) is a core symptom of depression which predicts a poor prognosis but has been neglected by existing treatments. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been co-designed with service users to better target anhedonia alongside other features of depression. This mixed methods pilot trial aims to establish proof of concept for ADepT and to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ADepT, compared to an evidence-based mainstream therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy; CBT) in the acute treatment of depression, the prevention of subsequent depressive relapse, and the enhancement of wellbeing.

METHODS

We aim to recruit 80 depressed participants and randomise them 1:1 to receive ADepT (15 weekly acute and 5 booster sessions in following year) or CBT (20 weekly acute sessions). Clinical and health economic assessments will take place at intake and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Reductions in PHQ-9 depression severity and increases in WEMWBS wellbeing at 6-month assessment (when acute treatment should be completed) are the co-primary outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation will assess mechanism of action, implementation issues, and contextual moderating factors. To evaluate proof of concept, intake-post effect sizes and the proportion of individuals showing reliable and clinically significant change on outcome measures in each arm at each follow-up will be reported. To evaluate feasibility and acceptability, we will examine recruitment, retention, treatment completion, and data completeness rates and feedback from patients and therapists about their experience of study participation and therapy. Additionally, we will establish the cost of delivery of ADepT.

DISCUSSION

We will proceed to definitive trial if any concerns about the safety, acceptability, feasibility, and proof of concept of ADepT and trial procedures can be rectified, and we recruit, retain, and collect follow-up data on at least 60% of the target sample.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISCRTN85278228, registered 27/03/2017.

Patient constructive learning behavior in cognitive therapy: A pathway for improving patient memory for treatment?

Patient memory for treatment is poor and associated with worse outcome. The Memory Support Intervention was designed to improve outcome by enhancing patient memory for treatment. Half of the strategies comprising the Memory Support Intervention (termed constructive memory support strategies) involve therapists inviting patients to construct new ideas, inferences, or connections related to treatment material that go beyond information already presented by therapists. This study investigated the relationship between patient responses to therapist use of constructive memory support strategies and patient recall of treatment contents. Therapist uses of constructive memory support strategies were coded from sessions recorded during a pilot trial of the Memory Support Intervention in the context of cognitive therapy for depression (n = 44 patients). Patients who successfully constructed new ideas, inferences, or connections (termed patient constructive learning behavior) in response to therapist use of constructive memory support strategies showed greater recall of treatment contents. Mediation analyses provided some evidence that patient constructive learning behavior may be a mechanism through which the Memory Support Intervention results in enhanced patient memory. Results highlight patient constructive learning behavior as a potential pathway for improving patient memory for treatment.

Patient Memory for Psychological Treatment Contents: Assessment, Intervention, and Future Directions for a Novel Transdiagnostic Mechanism of Change

Patient memory for treatment contents is defined as memory for the ideas, concepts, skills, and/or insights (termed treatment points) that the therapist thinks are important for the patient to remember and implement as a part of therapy. This article reviews key findings on patient memory for treatment contents, describes the development and evaluation of the Memory Support Intervention (MSI), and outlines future directions for research. Patient memory for treatment contents is poor, and worse memory is associated with worse treatment outcome. The MSI is composed of eight memory support strategies that therapists incorporate frequently alongside treatment points delivered during treatment-as-usual. Training therapists to deliver the MSI may yield better treatment outcomes by enhancing patient memory for treatment contents. Future research is needed to understand how to best measure patient memory for treatment contents, and the mediators, moderators, and dissemination potential of the MSI.

Patient learning of treatment contents in cognitive therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Research has demonstrated that both memory and learning for treatment contents are poor, and that both are associated with worse treatment outcome. The Memory Support Intervention has been shown to improve memory for treatment, but it has not yet been established if this intervention can also improve learning of treatment contents. This study was designed to document the number of times participants exhibited each of the indices of learning, to examine the indices of learning and their relationship to recall of treatment points, and to investigate the association between the indices of learning and depression outcome.

METHODS

Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (N = 48) were randomly assigned to 14 sessions of cognitive therapy-as-usual (CT-as-usual) or cognitive therapy plus the Memory Support Intervention (CT + Memory Support). Measures of learning, memory, and depressive symptomatology were taken at mid-treatment, post-treatment, and at 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Relative to the CT-as-usual group, participants in the CT + Memory Support group reported more accurate thoughts and applications of treatment points at mid-treatment, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up. Patient recall was significantly correlated with application and cognitive generalization. Thoughts and application at mid-treatment were associated with increased odds of treatment response at post-treatment.

LIMITATIONS

The learning measure for this study has not yet been psychometrically validated. The results are based on a small sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Learning during treatment is poor, but modifiable via the Memory Support Intervention. These results provide encouraging data that improving learning of treatment contents can reduce symptoms during and following treatment.

Can integrating the Memory Support Intervention into cognitive therapy improve depression outcome? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The Memory Support Intervention was developed in response to evidence showing that: (1) patient memory for treatment is poor, (2) poor memory for treatment is associated with poorer adherence and poorer outcome, (3) the impact of memory impairment can be minimized by the use of memory support strategies and (4) improved memory for treatment improves outcome. The aim of this study protocol is to conduct a confirmatory efficacy trial to test whether the Memory Support Intervention improves illness course and functional outcomes. As a “platform” for the next step in investigating this approach, we focus on major depressive disorder (MDD) and cognitive therapy (CT).

Method/design

Adults with MDD (n = 178, including 20% for potential attrition) will be randomly allocated to CT + Memory Support or CT-as-usual and will be assessed at baseline, post treatment and at 6 and 12 months’ follow-up (6FU and 12FU). We will compare the effects of CT + Memory Support vs. CT-as-usual to determine if the new intervention improves the course of illness and reduces functional impairment (aim 1). We will determine if patient memory for treatment mediates the relationship between treatment condition and outcome (aim 2). We will evaluate if previously reported poor treatment response subgroups moderate target engagement (aim 3).

Discussion

The Memory Support Intervention has been developed to be “transdiagnostic” (relevant to a broad range of mental disorders) and “pantreatment” (relevant to a broad range of types of treatment). This study protocol describes a “next step” in the treatment development process by testing the Memory Support Intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and cognitive therapy (CT). If the results are promising, future directions will test the applicability to other kinds of interventions and disorders and in other settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01790919. Registered on 6 October 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2276-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Memory support strategies and bundles: A pathway to improving cognitive therapy for depression?

OBJECTIVE

Therapist use of memory support (MS) alongside treatment-as-usual, with the goal of enhancing patient recall of treatment contents, has been of recent interest as a novel pathway to improve treatment outcome. The memory support intervention (MSI) involves treatment providers' using 8 specific MS strategies to promote patient memory for treatment. The present study examines to what extent therapist use of MS strategies and bundles improves patient recall of treatment contents and treatment outcome.

METHOD

The data were drawn from a pilot RCT reported elsewhere. Participants were 48 adults (mean age = 44.27 years, 29 females) with major depressive disorder (MDD), randomized to receive 14 sessions of either CT + Memory Support (n = 25) or CT-as-usual (n = 23). Therapist use of MS was coded using the Memory Support Rating Scale. Patient memory and treatment outcomes were assessed at baseline, midtreatment (patient recall only), posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Participants in CT + Memory Support received significantly higher amount of MS relative to CT-as-usual. Although not reaching statistical significance, small-to-medium effects were observed between MS strategies and patient recall in the expected direction. Although MS variables were not significantly associated with changes in continuous depressive symptoms, MS was associated with better global functioning. MS also exhibited small to medium effects on treatment response and recurrence in the expected direction but not on remission, though these effects did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide initial empirical evidence supporting an active method for therapists to implement MS strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record

Patient recall of specific cognitive therapy contents predicts adherence and outcome in adults with major depressive disorder

The current study examined whether and which specific contents of patients' memory for cognitive therapy (CT) were associated with treatment adherence and outcome. Data were drawn from a pilot RCT of forty-eight depressed adults, who received either CT plus Memory Support Intervention (CT + Memory Support) or CT-as-usual. Patients' memory for treatment was measured using the Patient Recall Task and responses were coded into cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) codes, such as CBT Model and Cognitive Restructuring, and non-CBT codes, such as individual coping strategies and no code. Treatment adherence was measured using therapist and patient ratings during treatment. Depression outcomes included treatment response, remission, and recurrence. Total number of CBT codes recalled was not significantly different comparing CT + Memory Support to CT-as-usual. Total CBT codes recalled were positively associated with adherence, while non-CBT codes recalled were negatively associated with adherence. Treatment responders (vs. non-responders) exhibited a significant increase in their recall of Cognitive Restructuring from session 7 to posttreatment. Greater recall of Cognitive Restructuring was marginally significantly associated with remission. Greater total number of CBT codes recalled (particularly CBT Model) was associated with non-recurrence of depression. Results highlight the important relationships between patients' memory for treatment and treatment adherence and outcome.

Do improved patient recall and the provision of memory support enhance treatment adherence?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient adherence to psychosocial treatment is an important but understudied topic. The aim of this study was to examine whether better patient recall of treatment contents and therapist use of memory support (MS) were associated with better treatment adherence.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants were 48 individuals (mean age = 44.27 years, 29 females) with Major Depressive Disorder randomized to receive either Cognitive Therapy (CT) with an adjunctive Memory Support Intervention (CT + Memory Support) or CT-as-usual. Therapist and patient ratings of treatment adherence were collected during each treatment session. Patient recall was assessed at mid-treatment. Therapist use of MS was manually coded for a random selection of sessions.

RESULTS

Patient recall was significantly associated with better therapist and patient ratings of adherence. Therapist use of Application, a specific MS strategy, predicted higher therapist ratings of adherence. Attention Recruitment, another specific MS strategy, appeared to attenuate the positive impact of session number on patient ratings of adherence. Treatment groups, MS summary scores and other specific MS strategies were not significantly associated with adherence.

LIMITATIONS

The measure for treatment adherence is in the process of being formally validated. Results were based on small sample.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the importance of patient recall in treatment adherence. Although collectively the effects of MS on treatment adherence were not significant, the results support the use of certain specific MS strategy (i.e., application) as a potential pathway to improve treatment adherence. Larger-scale studies are needed to further examine these constructs.

Improving outcome for mental disorders by enhancing memory for treatment

Patients exhibit poor memory for treatment. A novel Memory Support Intervention, derived from basic science in cognitive psychology and education, is tested with the goal of improving patient memory for treatment and treatment outcome. Adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) were randomized to 14 sessions of cognitive therapy (CT)+Memory Support (n = 25) or CT-as-usual (n = 23). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-treatment and 6 months later. Memory support was greater in CT+Memory Support compared to the CT-as-usual. Compared to CT-as-usual, small to medium effect sizes were observed for recall of treatment points at post-treatment. There was no difference between the treatment arms on depression severity (primary outcome). However, the odds of meeting criteria for 'response' and 'remission' were higher in CT+Memory Support compared with CT-as-usual. CT+Memory Support also showed an advantage on functional impairment. While some decline was observed, the advantage of CT+Memory Support was evident through 6-month follow-up. Patients with less than 16 years of education experience greater benefits from memory support than those with 16 or more years of education. Memory support can be manipulated, may improve patient memory for treatment and may be associated with an improved outcome.