Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group therapy for depression in routine practice

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Previous research has shown that cognitive- behavioral group therapy (group CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, the effectiveness of this approach in routine care needs more research. The current study retrospectively examines the outcomes of patients who received group CBT for depression at a psychiatric outpatient clinic between 2003 and 2013.

Methods

Based on patient records, 143 patients were identified as having received the treatment, and 88 patients were included in the outcome analyses. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score was the main outcome measure.

Results

The dropout rate was 17.5%. The average BDI-II score decreased from 28.5 to 18.5 from pre-treatment to post-treatment and remained stable at 3-months follow-up. The effect sizes at post-treatment and follow-up were large (d = .97 and d = 1.10, respectively). At post-treatment, 44% of the patients showed a significant improvement in depression, including 30% who recovered; at follow-up, the proportions increased to 57% and 40%, respectively. No predictors of dropout or treatment response were found.

Conclusions

Group CBT for depression can be delivered in routine care settings with good results. However, there are still many patients who drop out or do not benefit from treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-014-0292-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 57

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

Joseph Schafer, John W Graham (2002)

Statistical procedures for missing data have vastly improved, yet misconception and unsound practice still abound. The authors frame the missing-data problem, review methods, offer advice, and raise issues that remain unresolved. They clear up common misunderstandings regarding the missing at random (MAR) concept. They summarize the evidence against older procedures and, with few exceptions, discourage their use. They present, in both technical and practical language, 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI). Newer developments are discussed, including some for dealing with missing data that are not MAR. Although not yet in the mainstream, these procedures may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.

0 comments Cited 934 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Ralitza Gueorguieva, John Krystal (2004)

The analysis of repeated-measures data presents challenges to investigators and is a topic for ongoing discussion in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Traditional methods of statistical analysis (end-point analysis and univariate and multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance [rANOVA and rMANOVA, respectively]) have known disadvantages. More sophisticated mixed-effects models provide flexibility, and recently developed software makes them available to researchers. To review methods for repeated-measures analysis and discuss advantages and potential misuses of mixed-effects models. Also, to assess the extent of the shift from traditional to mixed-effects approaches in published reports in the Archives of General Psychiatry. The Archives of General Psychiatry from 1989 through 2001, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 425. Studies with a repeated-measures design, at least 2 groups, and a continuous response variable. The first author ranked the studies according to the most advanced statistical method used in the following order: mixed-effects model, rMANOVA, rANOVA, and end-point analysis. The use of mixed-effects models has substantially increased during the last 10 years. In 2001, 30% of clinical trials reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry used mixed-effects analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVAs continue to be used widely for the analysis of repeated-measures data, despite risks to interpretation. Mixed-effects models use all available data, can properly account for correlation between repeated measurements on the same subject, have greater flexibility to model time effects, and can handle missing data more appropriately. Their flexibility makes them the preferred choice for the analysis of repeated-measures data.

0 comments Cited 384 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials.

Drew Westen, Catherine M. Novotny, Heather Thompson-Brenner (2004)

This article provides a critical review of the assumptions and findings of studies used to establish psychotherapies as empirically supported. The attempt to identify empirically supported therapies (ESTs) imposes particular assumptions on the use of randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology that appear to be valid for some disorders and treatments (notably exposure-based treatments of specific anxiety symptoms) but substantially violated for others. Meta-analytic studies support a more nuanced view of treatment efficacy than implied by a dichotomous judgment of supported versus unsupported. The authors recommend changes in reporting practices to maximize the clinical utility of RCTs, describe alternative methodologies that may be useful when the assumptions underlying EST methodology are violated, and suggest a shift from validating treatment packages to testing intervention strategies and theories of change that clinicians can integrate into empirically informed therapies.

0 comments Cited 164 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Jens C Thimm: jens.thimm@uit.no

Liss Antonsen: liss.antonsen@helgelandssykehuset.no

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Psychiatry

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Psychiatry

Title: BMC Psychiatry

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-244X

Publication date (Electronic): 21 October 2014

Publication date PMC-release: 21 October 2014

Publication date Collection: 2014

Volume: 14

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: 292

Affiliations

[ ]Department of Psychology, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway

[ ]Helgeland Hospital Trust, 8607 Mo i Rana, Norway

Article

Publisher ID: 292

DOI: 10.1186/s12888-014-0292-x

PMC ID: 4209079

PubMed ID: 25330912

SO-VID: 3ca003f5-fcba-422f-a105-cd21159e9113

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

History

Date received : 30 May 2014

Date accepted : 10 October 2014

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

Keywords: cognitive-behavioral group therapy,depression,effectiveness,routine care

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

Keywords: cognitive-behavioral group therapy, depression, effectiveness, routine care

Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group therapy for depression in routine practice

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

Measurement of Glucocorticoid Receptor Signaling in Major Depression

Most cited references 57

Missing data: our view of the state of the art.

Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 159

Cited by 14

Most referenced authors 988