Search one of the following.

Blog

The Psychotherapy Practice Research Network (PPRNet) blog began in 2013 in response to psychotherapy clinicians, researchers, and educators who expressed interest in receiving regular information about current practice-oriented psychotherapy research. It offers a monthly summary of two or three published psychotherapy research articles. Each summary is authored by Dr. Tasca and highlights practice implications of selected articles. Past blogs are available in the archives. This content is only available in English.

This month...

Giorgio A. Tasca

…I blog about client perspectives on psychotherapy failure, therapeutic alliance, and alliance ruptures and resolutions and symptom severity.

Type of Research

Topics

April 2015

  • The Efficacy of Psychotherapy for Depression in Parkinson’s Disease

    Xie, C.L., Wang, X.D., Chen, J., Lin, H.Z., Chen, Y.H., Pan, J.L., & Wang, W.W. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive behavioral and psychodynamic therapy for depression in Parkinson’s disease patients. Neurological Sciences, 1-11.

    Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative brain disorder that progresses slowly in most people. When dopamine producing cells in the brain are damaged or do not produce enough dopamine, motor symptoms of PD appear. Non-motor symptoms, including depression, apathy, and sleep disorders are also common so that in clinical settings about a 40% of patients with PD may have a depressive disorder. Depression is a top predictor of poor quality of life in patients with PD. Depression in PD is not well understood but may be due to neurobiological vulnerability and to psychological factors. Antidepressant medications are often prescribed for depression in PD but their efficacy is questionable. Xie and colleagues argue that long term use of some antidepressants may lead to worsening of some PD motor symptoms. In this meta analysis, Xie and colleagues examine the efficacy of brief psychological interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic psychotherapy for depressive symptoms in PD. Twelve eligible studies were included in the meta analysis representing 766 patients with a mean age of 62 years (48% men). As an interesting note, 9 of the 12 studies were conducted in China and 3 were from the US or UK. Six of the studies used CBT for depression, and the remaining used psychodynamic therapy for depression in PD patients. Control conditions were often “treatment as usual”, and varied from antidepressant medication (e.g., Citalopram), nursing care, telephone calls, or no treatment for the depression. The effects of psychological interventions compared to control conditions on depressive symptoms were large, and remained large even after removing outlier studies. Outcomes for psychodynamic psychotherapy were better than for CBT, although both interventions resulted in large effects. There were also significant positive effects of brief psychotherapies on cognitive functioning, but not on quality of life. The authors were concerned that the quality of studies was variable and that many studies demonstrated a risk of bias. Further, most studies did not report outcomes at follow up periods.

    Practice Implications

    Significant depressive symptoms commonly occur in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). As a result, overall quality of life may be reduced in patients with PD. Medications for depression may be complicated by the neurodegenerative nature of PD – that is, effects of medications on depressive symptoms may be small and their neuro-motor side effects may be intolerable for some patients. This meta analysis by Xie and colleagues of 12 studies suggests that better research on psychotherapy for depression in PD needs to be conducted with adequate follow ups. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that brief psychological interventions may represent viable and effective alternatives for patients with PD who have a depressive disorder.

March 2015

  • Interpersonal Psychotherapy and Cognitive Therapy for Depression

    Lemmens, L.H.J.M., Arntz, A., Peeters, F., Hollon, S.D., Roefs, A., & Huibers, M.J.H. (2015). Clinical effectiveness of cognitive therapy v. interpersonal psychotherapy for depression: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, doi:10.1017/S0033291715000033

    Generally, I prefer to report on meta analyses rather than individual studies mainly because findings from meta analyses are based on a larger number of studies and so are more reliable (see my November, 2013 blog). However, this study by Lemmens and colleagues represents a large clinical trial of 182 depressed patients who were randomized to cognitive therapy (CT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), or a no-treatment control condition. The size of the trial provided the study with enough statistical power to test a hypothesis of non-inferiority of treatments. (A statistical note: A study finding of “non-inferiority” between treatments is sometimes unreliable because it is easier to detect such a finding with a small or poorly designed study. Studies with larger sample sizes provide greater statistical power, which in part makes a non-inferiority finding more reliable). A previous meta analysis showed both CT and IPT to be equally effective interventions for major depression. However, none of the studies in that meta analysis had sufficiently large sample sizes to reliably detect non-inferiority of interventions, none reported outcomes after post-treatment, and none of the studies used a no-treatment comparison condition. In their study, Lemmens and colleagues provided 16 to 20 sessions of individual therapy (45 minutes in length) to participants who met criteria for major depressive disorder. CT was based on Beck’s model and focused on identifying and altering cognitions, schemas, and attitudes associated with negative affect. IPT seeks to understand the social and interpersonal context of a patient’s depressive symptoms, and helps the patient to solve the interpersonal problem or change their relation to the problem, which may result in a resolution of the depressive symptoms. The study by Lemmens and colleagues was well designed in which: patients were randomized to conditions (CT, IPT, wait-list), 10 licensed therapists were expertly trained (5 CT therapists, 5 IPT therapists), and the therapies were competently delivered. Depressive symptoms significantly decreased for patients in both CT and IPT conditions with large effects, and these findings remained stable to 5 months post treatment. There were no differences between CT and IPT at post treatments and follow up, and both treatments were more effective than the waitlist control condition. Half of the sample had clinical improvements in symptoms, and 37% of patients were without depressive symptoms at 1 year follow up.

    Practice Implications

    CT and IPT did not differ in the treatment of depression in the short (post-treatment) and long term (follow up). The study does not address why two very different treatments led to similar positive outcomes. The authors suggest two possible reasons: (1) different specific treatment pathways led to similar results, or (2) change was driven by factors common to both treatments like motivation and therapeutic alliance.

December 2014

  • Does Cognitive Therapy Have an Enduring Effect Superior to Keeping Patients on Medication?

    Cuijpers, P., Hollon, S. D., van Straten, A., Bockting, C., Berking, M., & Andersson, G. (2013). Does cognitive behaviour therapy have an enduring effect that is superior to keeping patients on continuation pharmacotherapy? A meta-analysis. BMJ open, 3(4).

    In another in a series of meta analyses by this primarily Dutch group, Cuijpers and colleagues tackle the question of whether the longer term effects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; a short time-limited treatment for depression) outweighs the long term effects of continuation on anti depression medications. CBT is considered an efficacious treatment for depression (see my June 2014 Blog). CBT also has comparable effects as antidepressant medications, but CBT tends to have lower rates of treatment drop outs. What is not clear is whether short term CBT leads to lasting change that is comparable to long term use of medications for depression. One could argue for example, that short term CBT or other comparable psychological interventions teaches patients skills or changes psychological functioning such that future recurrences of depression are less likely. That is, psychological interventions may cause changes that eventually will prevent relapse. Pharmacotherapy on the other hand, may not result in psychological change or acquisition of new skills to forestall a relapse. In fact, patients with chronic depression tend to be kept on medications indefinitely, and patients who recently remit (i.e., no longer have symptoms of depression) are typically kept on pharmacotherapy for another 6 to 12 months to reduce the risk of recurrence. Information about the relative longer term effects of short term treatment with a psychological intervention like CBT versus longer term maintenance on pharmacotherapy can help practitioners and patients decide on the best course of action depending on patient preferences. Cuijpers and colleagues asked: is short term CBT without continuation of treatment as effective as short term treatment of pharmacotherapy with and without long term continuation? They conducted a meta analysis in which the effects of short term CBT were compared to pharmacotherapy in adults diagnosed with depression across follow up periods of 6 to 18 months. Nine studies representing 506 patients were included in the meta analysis. There was a non-significant trend showing that short term CBT outperformed continuation pharmacotherapy at one-year post treatment. On the other hand, CBT resulted in better long term outcomes compared to pharmacotherapy that was discontinued at post treatment. The odds of dropping out of treatment were significantly higher for those receiving pharmacotherapy compared to CBT. There were no differences in any of the findings for type of antidepressant medications.

    Practice Implications

    The findings reaffirm CBT as a first-line treatment of depressive disorders. It also suggests that equally effective other psychological treatments may also have similar enduring effects compared to pharmacotherapy. Patients and providers need to consider all of the evidence when weighing the pros and cons of psychotherapy or medications for the treatment of depression. Although pharmacotherapy might be more widely available to patients through primary care physicians, the research is suggesting that enduring effects and treatment compliance are higher among those who have access to psychological interventions.

September 2014

  • Long-Term Effects of Psychotherapy for Depression

    Steinert, C., Hofmann, M., Kruse, J., & Leichsenring, F. (2014). Relapse rates after psychotherapy for depression - stable long term effects? A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.06.043

    As I reported in the June 2014 Blog depression is the most highly prevalent of the mental disorders with a lifetime prevalence of about 16%. It is responsible for enormous personal and economic burden for individuals and their families. Depression can occur as a single episode, however recurrence of depressive episodes can range from about 35% to 85% of those who were depressed. About 10% of cases experience chronic depression. Studies report that chronic or severe depression result in a lower response to interventions, including psychotherapy. Meta analytic research shows that a number of psychotherapeutic interventions are equally effective for treating depression (see also the July 2014 Blog). However, all of these meta analytic reviews of the effects of psychotherapy for depression referred to studies demonstrating short or medium term effectiveness. There are very few studies that report long term effectiveness of any type of treatment (psychological or pharmacological) for depression. This is a problem given the fluctuating and sometimes chronic course of the disorder. Randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy are expensive and time consuming, and collecting follow up data is difficult. And so it is not surprising that few studies assess outcomes after one or two years post treatment. Steinert and colleagues conducted a meta analysis looking specifically at studies that documented long term (i.e., greater than 2 years) post psychotherapy outcomes for depression. (A note on meta analyses: Meta analyses are a set of procedures that allow one to statistically combine the effects of many studies in order to estimate the average effect across many studies and participants. Meta analyses produce much more reliable results than any single study can produce, and so meta analyses are the best way of summarizing research to affect practice). Steinert and colleagues found 11 studies of 966 patients that reported outcomes beyond 2 years post psychotherapy. Six of the studies compared psychotherapy to another intervention (e.g., medications, treatment as usual, clinical management). The authors found that 40% of patients treated with psychotherapy had at least one relapse in a follow up period averaging about 4 years. Compared to non-psychotherapy interventions psychotherapy had a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing a relapse. Despite the positive long term outcomes of psychotherapy for depression, the authors noted that there was a great deal of inconsistency across studies (i.e., hetereogeneity), which lowers ones confidence in the reliability of these findings.

    Practice Implications

    There are very few studies of long term (> 2 years post treatment) outcomes of psychotherapy for depression. In the June and August PPRNet Blogs, I reported on large scale worldwide reviews that indicate how pervasive depression can be, and how detrimental depression is to health and well being. Depression can be recurrent and chronic for some, so demonstrating long term outcomes is important. On the positive side, psychotherapy results in 60% of individuals not experiencing relapses 4 years post treatment, and psychotherapy resulted better long term outcomes than non-psychotherapy interventions. However, having so few studies that assess long term outcomes reduces our confidence in these findings. A number of psychotherapies including cognitive behavioral therapies, psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and others are effective for treating depression.

August 2014

  • Depression as a Risk Factor for Poor Prognosis Among Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

    Lichtman, J.H., Froelicher, E.S., Blumenthal, J.A., Carney, R.A., Doering, L.V., et al. (2014). Depression as a risk factor for poor prognosis among patients with acute coronary syndrome: Systematic review and recommendations: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 129, 1350-1369.

    There are about 15.4 million US adults with coronary heart disease. About 20% of those hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS; that includes myocardial infarction or unstable angina) meet diagnostic criteria for major depression. An even larger percentage of those with heart disease show sub-clinical levels of depressive symptoms. As I reported in the June 2014 PPRNet Blog about 4% of the population suffer from depression, and so the rates of depression are substantially higher among those with ACS. There is a large body of research showing a reliable association between depression and increased morbidity and mortality after ACS. The goal of this scientific statement by the American Heart Association is to review current evidence for the role of depression as a risk factor among patients with ACS. The authors were particularly interested in studies looking at: (1) all cause mortality, (2) cardiac mortality, and (3) composite outcomes including mortality and nonfatal events. Fifty three studies, representing tens of thousands of patients were included in the review. Twenty one of 32 published studies indicated that depression is a risk factor for all-cause mortality after ACS. Fewer studies looked at the relationship between depression and cardiac mortality, but 8 of 12 studies suggested that depression is a risk factor for cardiac mortality after ACS. Finally evidence from 17 of 22 studies suggested that depression was a risk factor for combined outcomes of cardiac mortality, all cause mortality, and nonfatal cardiac events. The authors also reported on meta analyses looking at the association between depression and mortality following myocardial infarction. Depression increased the risk in individuals of mortality from 1.6 to 2.3 times. The authors concluded that the American Heart Association should elevate depression to the status of a risk factor for adverse medical events in patients with ACS.

    Practice Implications

    This scientific statement by the American Heart Association published in a technical journal read by cardiologists is important because it acknowledges a mental health problem as a risk factor for mortality from a common medical disease. The evidence is quite strong that depression increases the risk of death in those with heart disease, especially acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Some of the mechanisms for the risk may include genetic/physiological factors like inflammation, platelet aggregation, and the serotonin system that are associated with both depression and ACS. In addition, depression can result in less physical activity and poorer self care which could exacerbate a number of health problems that increase the risk for cardiac disease. Depression is also associated with increases in high risk health behaviors like smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and non-adherence to medical treatment. Assessing for and treating depression among patients who have a history of or are at risk of heart disease is important. If such a patient is depressed or has elevated depressive symptoms, then the depression should be treated in order to reduce the risk of death due to medical problems. In the July 2014 PPRNet Blog, I reported on a network meta analysis showing the positive effects of 7 psychotherapies for depression.

July 2014

  • Comparing Seven Psychotherapies for Depression

    Barth, J., Munder, T., Gerger, H., Nuesch, E., Trelle, S. et al. (2013) Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic Interventions for patients with depression: A network meta-analysis. PLoS Med 10(5): e1001454. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454

    As I wrote about in the June, 2014 blog, depression is a highly burdensome disorder and is the third leading cause of disability worldwide after lower respiratory infections and diarrhoeal diseases. Depression occurs in 4.4% of the world population. Identifying effective treatment for depression is critical to reduce its health and economic burden. There is broad based consensus that psychotherapy is effective for depression, but there remains ongoing debate about which therapies are more effective. Establishing the relative efficacy of psychotherapy for depression is important because many patients do not respond to any one type of treatment – and so they may benefit from different options. Although some meta-analyses have synthesized research that compared pairs of treatments against one another within studies, these meta analyses do not allow one to pool these comparisons of treatments across studies in a comprehensive way. The study by Barth and colleagues uses a relatively new method called network meta analysis in which many treatments can be compared to each other at once by pooling comparisons of treatments to alternate treatments across a number of studies. As a result the authors were able in one meta analysis to compare the relative efficacy of seven different treatments for depression. The seven therapies were defined as follows: (1) Interpersonal Psychotherapy: a brief and structured therapy that focuses on interpersonal issues in depression; (2) Behavioral Activation: raises the patient’s awareness of pleasant activities and seeks to increase the patient’s positive interactions with the environment; (3) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: focuses on a patient’s negative beliefs, how they affect current and future behavior, and restructures the beliefs; (4) Problem Solving Therapy: defines a patient’s problems, proposes solutions for each problem, and then selects the best solution; (5) Psychodynamic Therapy: focuses on unresolved conflicts and relationships and the impact they have on a patient’s current functioning; (6) Social Skills Therapy: teaches skills that help to build and maintain healthy relationships; and (7) Supportive Counseling: aims to help patients talk about their experiences and emotions, and offers empathy. The network meta analysis included 198 clinical trials that represented 15,118 patients in which the seven psychotherapies were compared to each other or to a control condition. All seven psychotherapies were better than wait list controls or usual care, with moderate to large differences. That is, the average patient receiving psychotherapy was better off than about half those in a control condition. Researchers found small or no differences when the seven therapies were compared to each other. Treatments worked equally well for different patient groups (e.g., younger vs older; post natal depression; etc.), and in different modalities (individual vs group).

    Practice Implications

    All seven therapies were effective in reducing depression and none of the seven therapies in this network meta analysis stood out as superior to the others. The findings suggest that patients have a number of viable options for psychotherapeutic treatment for depression. This is important because, about 40% of patients do not benefit from the treatments they do receive, though they may benefit from another approach and will require other options. Client preferences may play a critical role in determining outcomes for some. If possible, patients should be given the option of the type treatment they may prefer or the option of the type of therapist with which they may be most comfortable.

Back to top
Psychotherapy Practice Research Network (PPRNet)

School of Psychology
Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Ottawa
136 Jean-Jacques Lussier
Vanier Hall, Room 4012
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
Map

Tel.: 1-888-445-9929

PPRNet@uOttawa.ca