Blog

Cuijpers, P., Driessen, E., Hollon, S. D., van Oppen, P., Barth, J., & Andersson, G. (2012). The efficacy of non-directive supportive therapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 32(4), 280-291.

The research evidence indicates that there is very little difference between different types of psychotherapy (CBT, IPT, PDT, EFT, and others) in patient outcomes, especially for depression. Nondirective supportive treatment (NDST) also shows positive outcomes for various disorders. NDST is often used as a “placebo” condition in psychotherapy trials to control for common or non-specific factors. Common factors refer to those aspects that are common to all therapies, but that are not specific to any one therapy (e.g., therapist interpersonal skills, therapeutic alliance, client expectations). NDST does not involve specific therapeutic interventions like cognitive restructuring, transference interpretations, two-chair techniques, etc. In this meta analysis, Cuijpers and colleagues assessed those randomized controlled trials for depression in which specific treatments (e.g., CBT, PDT, IPT, EFT) or no treatment control conditions were directly compared to NDST. By doing so, the authors were able to estimate how much of patient outcomes were attributable to: specific effects of treatments (the difference between a specific intervention and NDST), common effects of treatment (the difference between NDST and no treatment), and extra-therapeutic factors (the effects of no treatment). The meta analysis included 31 studies with over 2500 patients with depression. Twenty-one comparisons included CBT, and the rest included IPT, PDT, or EFT. NDST was significantly less effective than other specific therapies (e.g., CBT, IPT, PDT, or EFT) at post-treatments g = −0.20 (95% CI: −0.32 to −0.08), but the effect was quite small. The difference between NDST and CBT alone (the most researched treatment type) was not statistically significant. Interestingly, when the authors controlled for researcher allegiance (an indication of which treatment was preferred by the researcher), the superior effects of specific treatments over NDST disappeared. NDST was significantly more effective than no-treatment, and the effect was moderate, g=0.58 (95% CI: 0.45–0.72). Pre- to post-treatment change in symptoms in the control condition was statistically significant, g = 0.39 (95% CI: 0.03–0.74), indicating the positive effects of extra-therapeutic factors on depressive symptoms (e.g., events in the patient’s life not related to therapy). Overall, the authors were able to estimate that almost 50% of patient outcomes could be attributed to common factors (therapist interpersonal skills, therapeutic alliance, client expectations, etc.), about 17% was due to specific therapy techniques (cognitive restructuring, two chair techniques, IPT interventions), and about 33% was due to extra-therapeutic factors (e.g., the natural course of depressive symptoms or other events in the patient’s life).

Practical Implications

Factors like therapist interpersonal skills and managing the therapeutic relationship appear to account for most (50%) of why patients with depression get better. The specific interventions based on therapy models like CBT account for relatively less of patient outcomes (17%). The natural course of the disorder and other events in patients’ lives account for about a third of patient improvement. Therapists can learn how to maximize the effects of common factor skills through deliberate practice and training to identify and repair alliance ruptures to help their patients get better.

Razza, L. B., Moffa, A. H., Moreno, M. L., Carvalho, A. F., Padberg, F., Fregni, F., & Brunoni, A. R. (2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis on placebo response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression trials. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 81, 105-113.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a new treatment for depression thought to modulate brain activity through electromagnetic pulses delivered by a coil placed over the patient’s scalp. A meta analysis shows that TMS may be effective in treating depressive disorders when compared to a placebo control, although only 18.6% of those receiving TMS were no longer depressed at the end of treatment. The placebo control condition usually involves a sham version of TMS in which the coil is placed over the scalp but no magnetic stimulation is applied. In antidepressant trials, the placebo response is quite high such that approximately 40% of patients respond to the placebo condition (in antidepressant trials, the placebo condition includes an identical pill that is inert). In this meta analysis, Razza and colleagues assess the placebo response in TMS. They included only double blind randomized controlled trials (i.e., trials in which both the patient and physician were not aware if the treatment was real or a sham). The authors estimated the placebo response based on pre- to post-sham TMS scores of common measures of depression. The meta analysis included 61 studies of over 1300 patients. The main result showed that sham response was large (g = 0.80; 95%CI = 0.65–0.95). Trials including patients with only one episode of depression or who were not treatment resistant (g =0.67, 95%CI = 0.06–1.28, p= 0.03) had higher placebo responses than those trials in which patients previously had two or more failed antidepressant treatments (g = 0.5, 95%CI = 0.03–0.99, p = 0.048).

Practice Implications

The results of this meta analysis demonstrates a high placebo response in trials testing TMS. This is similar to the high level of placebo response commonly seen in patients in antidepressant medication trials. It appears that psychological factors like attention, instillation of hope, patient expectations of receiving benefit, and perhaps working alliance may account for an important portion of why pharmacological and other medical interventions appear to work for those with depressive disorders. This is particularly true for patients who are receiving treatment for the first time or for whom previous medical treatment was successful.

Podina, I. R., & Fodor, L. A. (2018). Critical review and meta-analysis of multicomponent behavioral e-health interventions for weight loss. Health Psychology, 37(6), 501-515.

Over 35% of Americans are overweight or obese, and this poses significant health-related challenges. Obesity likely contributes to heart disease, Type II diabetes, and some forms of cancer. Also, obesity is often co-morbid with mental health conditions including depression and binge-eating disorder. Practice guidelines list multicomponent behavioural interventions as state of the art treatment for weight loss. These include dietary counselling, increased physical activity, and behavioural methods to support behaviour change. However, such interventions often require direct in-person contact with a health or mental health professional, which can be expensive and create a barrier to accessing treatment for some. An option to increase access is to deliver the multicomponent behavioural intervention by internet or by another electronic format such as DVD. In this meta analysis, Podina and Fodor reviewed 47 randomized controlled studies representing over 1500 participants in which e-health interventions for weight loss in overweight or obese individuals were tested against in-person treatment or a control condition (no treatment or treatment as usual). E-health interventions were more effective than control conditions for weight loss outcomes at post-treatment, g = 0.34 (95% CI [0.24 to 0.44]). Similar results were found at follow-up. However, e-health interventions were significantly less effective than active in-person treatments, g = -0.31 (95% CI [-0.43 to -0.20]) for weight loss in overweight or obese individuals.

Practice Implications

E-health interventions (mostly internet delivered treatment) of multicomponent behavioral treatment for weight loss was more effective than no treatment or treatment as usual. However, e-health was significantly less effective than traditional face to face behavioral interventions to help people reduce their body weight. The authors raised concerns about the use of e-health interventions for weight loss as the first line treatment as the effects were small and the approach was less effective than in-person interventions.

So, M., Yamaguchi, S., Hashimoto, S., Sado, M., Furukawa, T.A., & McCrone, P. (2013). Is computerised CBT really helpful for adult depression?-A meta-analytic re-evaluation of CCBT for adult depression in terms of clinical implementation and methodological validity. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 113. 

Depression is a major cause of disability in the world, and so efforts to improve access to its treatment have been ongoing for several decades. In particular, many researchers and clinicians propose cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as an effective treatment with a good evidence-base. There have been many clinical trials showing the efficacy of CBT. In recent years, there have also been attempts to computerize CBT (CCBT) as a self help intervention in order to increase its accessibility for those with depression, and perhaps also to improve its cost effectiveness. In fact, the Increasing Accessibility to Psychotherapy (IAPT) program in the UK provides CCBT as the most common first treatment for depression. However there remain questions about the longer term effectiveness of CCBT to reduce symptoms of depression, its potentially high patient dropout rate (a negative outcome), and its effects on quality of life of those burdened by depression. In this meta analysis, the largest of its kind, So and colleagues assess these issues with regard to CCBT. They reviewed 14 direct comparison randomized controlled trials that provided 16 comparisons of CCBT versus a control condition (wait list or treatment as usual) for adults with depression. At post-treatment, CCBT was more effective than controls in reducing depression −0.48 [95% CI −0.63 to −0.33]. However, at follow up (up to 6 months), the effects of CCBT disappeared −0.05 [95% CI −0.19 to 0.09]. Also improvement in functioning and quality of life were not significantly different between CCBT and control conditions, −0.05 [95% CI −0.31 to 0.22]. The rate of drop out from CCBT (32%) was almost double that of control conditions (17%), RR = 1.68 [95% CI 1.31 to 2.16]. There was also evidence of publication bias (i.e., a tendency for some researchers not to publish non-significant findings), so that the positive post-treatment results in favour of CCBT might be inflated.

Practice Implications

Although CCBT may be touted as a way to increase access to treatment for depression, this meta analysis indicates some concerns about the widespread implementation of CCBT. The effects of CCBT appear to be limited to a short-term reduction of depressive symptoms that may not be sustained in the longer run. There was no appreciable impact of CCBT on quality of life relative to controls, and so CCBT may have a limited impact on the burden of depression. Most troubling was a high drop out rate of 32%. Drop out from CCBT in the IAPT program in the UK is about 50%, and this may be indicative of the actual drop out rate in real world practice.

Gutermann, J., Schwartzkopff, L., & Steil, R. (2017). Meta-analysis of the long-term treatment effects of psychological interventions in youth with PTSD symptoms. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 20, 422-434.

Natural disasters, physical abuse, sexual abuse, war, accidents, loss and severe illness are traumatic events that can occur during childhood and adolescence. These potentially traumatic events are highly prevalent in youth, and approximately 15% of children and adolescents who have been exposed to traumatic events meet the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD include: intrusive memories of the traumatic event, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative change in mood or cognitions. PTSD symptoms are also highly stable over time, and so without intervention they do not tend to improve. In this meta-analysis, Gutermann and colleagues assess the effects of psychological treatments for PTSD in youth, with a special emphasis on their long term therapeutic effects. Forty-seven studies of 3767 participants were included in the analyses. Traumas were varied and included childhood abuse, physical abuse, accidents, wars, and natural disasters. About 68% of interventions were CBT-oriented, and 67% were provided in a group therapy format. The uncontrolled pre-treatment to follow-up effect sizes for PTSD symptoms was large for studies with a follow-up period greater than 6 months (N = 30; g = .99, CI .83, 1.16). However, when psychological interventions were compared to treatment as usual or an active control group in a randomized controlled trial, the effects at post-treatment were small (N = 6; g = .38, CI .03–.74), and effects at follow up periods combined were also small (N = 19; g = .38, CI .20, .55).

Practice Implications

Psychological interventions resulted large effects to reduce PTSD symptoms from pre-treatment to follow-up from treatment. However, compared to treatment as usual or other active control groups, psychological treatments resulted in small effects in the longer term. There were too few studies to assess different treatment approaches, age groups, and modalities (group vs individual). Nevertheless, the results provide support for the efficacy of psychological treatments for PTSD in youth with modest effects at follow-up.

Author email: Gutermann@psych.uni-frankfurt.de

Grenon, R., Schwartze, D., Hammond, N., Ivanova, I., Mcquaid, N., Proulx, G., & Tasca, G. A. (2017). Group psychotherapy for eating disorders: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders. DOI: 10.1002/eat.22744

Group therapy has an evidence base indicating its efficacy for many disorders. Groups represent a social microcosm in which interpersonal factors that underlie psychological distress and symptoms can be effectively addressed. Group therapeutic factors include peer interpersonal feedback, social learning, emotional expression, and group cohesion. Theories of eating disorder symptoms include interpersonal problems and affect dysregulation as maintenance factors. Many treatment guidelines indicate that individual and group CBT are the treatments of choice for eating disorders. However, there are no meta analyses that specifically look at the efficacy of group therapy for eating disorders. In this study, Grenon and colleagues assess if: (a) group psychotherapy for eating disorders is efficacious compared to wait-list controls, (b) group therapy is effective compared to other active treatments (self help, individual therapy, medications), and (c) group CBT is more effective than other types of group therapy (group interpersonal therapy [GIPT], group psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy [GPIP], or group dialectical behavior therapy [GDBT]). The authors reviewed 27 randomized controlled trials with over 1800 patients that provided direct comparisons of group therapy for eating disorders. The mean drop out rate from group therapy was 16.47% (SD = 13.46), which is similar to what is reported for psychotherapy trials in general. Group therapy was significantly more effective than wait list controls in achieving abstinence from binge eating and purging (RR = 5.51, 95% CI: 3.73, 8.12), decreasing the frequency of binge eating and/or purging (g = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.90), and reducing related psychopathology (g = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.66). Group psychotherapy had an overall rate of abstinence from binge eating of 51.38%, while wait-list control conditions had an overall abstinence rate of 6.51%. Similar findings were achieved a follow-ups. The effects of group psychotherapy and other active treatments (e.g., behavioral weight loss, self-help, individual psychotherapy) did not differ on any outcome at post-treatment or at follow-ups. Group CBT and other forms of group psychotherapy did not differ significantly on outcomes at any time point.

Practice Implications

The results add to a growing body of research that indicates that group psychotherapy is as effective as other treatments, including individual therapy, to treat mental disorders. Despite the fact that practice guidelines indicate that CBT is the treatment of choice for eating disorders, this meta analysis did not provide evidence that group CBT was more effective than other types of group treatments. Clinicians considering group interventions for eating disorders or other mental health problems will do well to make use of group therapeutic factors like interpersonal learning, peer feedback, emotional expression, and group cohesion to improve patient outcomes.