Blog

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content and sections of the book can be read on Google Books.

Crits-Christoph, P., Connolly Gibbons, M.B., & Mukherjee, D. (2013). Psychotherapy process-outcome research. In M.E. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, 6^th Edition (pp. 298-340). New York: Wiley.

In this section of their chapter in the Handbook, Crits-Christoph and colleagues (2013) review research on: (1) specific techniques of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and (2) change mechanisms of CBT for depression. Research on techniques and mechanisms of change tests the specific or unique effects of a treatment and the rationale for its use. The first issue addresses whether therapist adherence and competence in using CBT techniques produce desired outcomes in patients. CBT techniques include: following an agenda, reviewing homework, asking about specific beliefs, practicing rational responses with patients, and asking patients to keep thought records. Crits-Christoph and colleagues (2013) report that the research findings on the association between using specific CBT techniques and depression outcomes are mixed. The strongest evidence is for concrete techniques such as setting agendas, reviewing homework, and practicing rational responses. However the number of studies that control for prior symptom change and other factors like therapeutic alliance is small, and so the evidence for the specific effects of CBT techniques remains meagre. The second issue addresses whether targeting depressogenic cognitions with CBT results in positive outcomes. Generally, CBT theory argues that the mechanisms by which CBT works is to focus on core depressogenic schemas (i.e., less consciously long held negative beliefs about the self), conscious negative automatic thoughts, and dysfunctional attitudes (i.e., patterns of automatic thoughts) that lead to or maintain depression. Theoretically, addressing these cognitions in CBT should reduce depressive symptoms. Overall, the research shows that both CBT and medication treatment for depression reduce self-reported negative thinking; that is, the effects on negative thinking were not specific to CBT. Few studies show that changes in cognitions precede changes in depressive symptoms, which is a key CBT tenet. The most promising findings suggest that learning compensatory skills (i.e., finding alternative explanations for negative events and thoughts, and problems solving) may be part of the mechanism by which CBT works, but again this mechanism may not be specific to CBT.

Practice Implications

CBT is an effective treatment for depression. CBT theory suggests that the reason for its effectiveness is the use of specific techniques (i.e., reviewing homework, asking for specific beliefs, practicing rational responses with patients, and asking patients to keep thought records) that target the purported causes of depression (i.e., depressogenic shemas, negative thoughts, and dysfunctional attitudes). Currently there is little research evidence that supports the specificity of CBT techniques or that supports the notion that specific changes in cognitions as a result of CBT reduce depression. Nevertheless, in general, concrete techniques (i.e., setting agendas, reviewing homework, and practicing rational responses) are clinically useful for depressed patients, as is learning compensatory skills like problem solving.

Cuijpers, P., Huibers, M., Ebert, D.D., Koole, S.L., & Andersson, G. (2013). How much psychotherapy is needed to treat depression? A metaregression analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 147, 1-13.

The question of the number of psychotherapy sessions and of frequency sessions (i.e., number of sessions per week) that are optimal for good outcomes could have implications for how psychotherapy is practiced and how it is reimbursed. In my August 2013 PPRNet Blog, I reported on research that indicated half of patients recover after 21 sessions of psychotherapy. However, that also means that half do not recover in that number of sessions. Many of those who do not recover require another 29 sessions to recover. Research and practice in psychotherapy is largely based on a “one-session-per-week” model. Some researchers, however, have found that an increase in the frequency sessions per week could improve or speed up outcomes. Cuijpers and colleagues (2013) did a meta-regression to assess these questions for short-term psychotherapies for depression. (Meta-regression is a type of meta-analysis in which predictors from many studies are aggregated and their averaged effects on the aggregated outcome are assessed. This produces much more reliable findings than are possible from a single study.) The authors assessed predictors such as the number and frequency of sessions, and they looked at symptom outcomes for depression. The authors found 70 controlled studies that included 5403 patients. More than two-thirds of the studies included CBT as the psychotherapy. Average length of treatment was 11 sessions, and the maximum number of sessions was 24. The number of sessions across studies ranged from .44 to 2 per week, and the average per week was 1. The overall effect size for the treatment was medium sized (g = .59), though the effect became smaller (g = .40) when publication bias was corrected. (Publication bias refers to the likelihood that some less favorable studies or results were not published thus creating an overestimation of the effect of the treatment. See my May 2013 PPRNet Blog). Cuijper and colleagues’ meta-regression showed a small but significant association between greater number of sessions and outcomes for depression; but more importantly, a greater number of sessions per week had a considerably larger positive influence on the effects of psychotherapy for depression.

Practice Implications

The findings from Cuijpers and colleagues (2013) meta-regression are particularly relevant to time limited treatment of depression with CBT. The total number of sessions was less important than the frequency of sessions per week. The results suggest that increasing the intensity or frequency of CBT sessions per week might result in a more efficient therapy and faster relief for patients with depression.

Author email: p.cuijpers@vu.nl

Bell, E. C., Marcus, D. K., & Goodlad, J. K. (2013). Are the parts as good as the whole? A meta-analysis of component treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 722-736.

Component studies (i.e., dismantling treatments or adding to existing treatments) may provide a method for identifying whether specific active ingredients in psychotherapy contribute to client outcomes. In a dismantling design, at least one element of the treatment is removed and the full treatment is compared to this dismantled version. In additive designs, an additional component is added to an existing treatment to examine whether the addition improves client outcomes. If the dismantled or added component is an active ingredient, then the condition with fewer components should yield less improvement. Among other things, results from dismantling or additive design studies can help clinicians make decisions about which components of treatments to add or remove with some clients who are not responding. For example, Jacobson and colleagues (1996) conducted a dismantling study of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression. They compared: (1) the full package of CBT, (2) behavioral activation (BA) plus CBT modification of automatic thoughts, and (3) BA alone. This study failed to find differences among the three treatment conditions. These findings were interpreted to indicate that BA was as effective as CBT, and there followed an increased interest in behavioral treatments for depression. However, relying on a single study to influence practice is risky because single studies are often statistically underpowered and their results are not as reliable as the collective body of research. One way to evaluate the collective research is by meta analysis, which allows one to assess an overall effect size in the available literature (see my November, 2013 blog on why clinicians should rely on meta analyses). In their meta analysis, Bell and colleagues (2013) collected 66 component studies from 1980 to 2010. For the dismantling studies, there were no significant differences between the full treatments and the dismantled treatments. For the additive studies, the treatment with the added component yielded a small but significant effect at treatment completion and at follow-up. These effects were only found for the specific problems that were targeted by the treatment. Effects were smaller and non-non-significant for other outcomes such as quality of life.

Practice Implications

Psychotherapists are sometimes faced with a decision about whether to supplement current treatments with an added component, or whether to remove a component that may not be helping. Adding components to existing treatments leads to modestly improved outcomes at least with regard to targeted symptoms. Removing components appears not to have an impact on outcomes. The findings of Bell and colleagues’ (2013) meta analysis suggest that specific components or active ingredients of current treatments’ have a significant but small effect on outcomes. Some writers, such as Wampold, have argued that the small effects of specific components highlight the greater importance of common factors in psychotherapy (i.e., therapeutic alliance, client expectations, therapist empathy, etc.). This may be especially the case when it comes to improving a patient’s quality of life.

Author email: david.marcus@wsu.edu

Driessen, E., Van, H.L., Don, F.J., Peen, J., Kool, S. ....Dekker, J.J. (2013). The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic therapy in the outpatient treatment of major depression: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 1041-1050.

Psychotherapy is one of the most widely used treatments for major depression. Unfortunately there is no commercial entity like the pharmaceutical industry to support research and development of psychotherapy. As a result, researchers have limited ability to conduct larger-scale studies of comparative treatment effectiveness, of which there are only a handful. Although psychodynamic therapy (PDT) has been used to treat depressed patients for decades, randomized controlled trials of its efficacy are relatively infrequent. A concurrent problem with outcome research in psychotherapy is that sample sizes tend to be too small to actually test if two treatments are equivalent in what is called an “equivalency trial”. Without large samples, all one can conclude is that two treatments are “not significantly different” (a statistical note: an equivalency trial is planned from the outset to have a large enough sample to test the hypothesis that, with 95% certainty, the effect of one treatment falls within a narrow, predetermined margin of the effect of another treatment). The study by Driessen and colleagues was conducted in several sites in Amsterdam, in which 341 patients seeking outpatient psychotherapy for depression in psychiatric clinics were randomized to PDT or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). This is largest trial ever of PDT. Participants received 16 weeks of therapy and then were followed up for 1 year. About 40% of patients started with severe depression. Therapists were 93 experienced and well trained therapists who provided one of the two treatments. The main outcome was remission from depression, defined by achieving a low score on a validated observer rating scale. Post treatment remission rates were 21% for CBT and 24% for PDT, indicating that the treatments were equivalent.

Practice Implications

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and short-term PDT provided similar outcomes for patients with a major depressive episode, but remission rates at the end of treatment were low for both treatments. Lower remission rates were likely due to the greater level of severity for these patients compared to those seen in primary care settings. The results highlight that even the best available psychological (and pharmacological) treatments yield modest outcomes for more severely depressed patients. Nevertheless, this rare equivalency trial found that both CBT and PDT were equivalent in terms of outcomes for these patients.

Author email: e.driessen@vu.nl

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content can be viewed on Amazon.

Forand, N.R., DeRubeis, R.J., & Amsterdam, J.D. (2013). Combining medication and psychotherapy in the treatment of major mental disorders. In M.J. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6^th ed.), pp. 735-774. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

This comprehensive chapter covers evidence for combining medication and psychotherapy for several disorders. This month I report on the section of the chapter on schizophrenia. Practice guidelines recommend antipsychotic medications as the first line treatment for Schizophrenia. However, up to 30% of individuals show an initial poor response and an additional 30% of patients continue to experience symptoms. Medication side effects can be debilitating, resulting in poor adherence and therefore reduced effectiveness. Further, Schizophrenia spectrum disorders are heterogenous in presentation and course, and so a “one size fits all” approach will not be effective for some or many. Psychotherapies can enhance the effectiveness of medications at different phases of treatment to hasten recovery or reduce medication-resistant symptoms. CBT for schizophrenia was developed to treat persistent medication-resistant positive psychotic symptoms (i.e., positive symptoms refer to delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech and behaviour; whereas negative symptoms refer to restrictions in: emotions, thoughts, speech, and initiating goal directed behaviors). CBT focuses on reappraising the power and source of hallucinations, evaluating delusions, and addressing motivational deficits. CBT appears to be effective for chronic symptoms of schizophrenia with small to moderate effects, and these effects appear to be enduring. There is currently less and mixed evidence for CBT to speed recovery from first episode psychosis and to improve relapse rates. There is also evidence suggesting the effects of family psychoeducation to reduce relapse and to improve caregiver outcomes. However, family psychoeducation requires the participation of a caregiver, which may be a challenge that limits its utility. There is promising research on multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs that include case management, behaviour management, social skills training, social cognitive training, and cognitive remediation. There is also controversial research on providing psychological interventions alone or in a staged approach (i.e, in which earlier and less severe stages are treated with more benign interventions, and later stages are treated more aggressively with medication). However there are as yet no well-controlled clinical data to support this approach.

Practice Implications

Adjunctive psychosocial treatments appear to improve symptomatic and functional outcomes in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. CBT is best suited for treating chronic positive psychotic symptoms, but its effect on relapse prevention is equivocal. Individuals who are at risk for relapse might benefit from family psychoeducation, if the caregiver can be engaged. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs are a promising avenue of treatment.

Ulvenes, P. G., Berggraf, L., Hoffart, A., Stiles, T. C., Svartberg, M., McCullough, L., & Wampold, B. E. (2012). Different processes for different therapies: Therapist actions, therapeutic bond, and outcome. Psychotherapy, 49(3), 291-302.

One of the few truisms of psychotherapy is that the therapeutic alliance is important to treatment outcomes. But does the alliance work similarly in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and in Psychodynamic Therapy (PDT)? Therapeutic alliance is defined by three elements: the bond between client and therapist, agreement on tasks, and agreement on goals. Compared to PDT therapists, CBT therapists tend to focus more on cognitions and focus less on emotions, and so the bond may be less important in CBT than agreement on tasks and goals. Will the bond between client and therapist be differentially affected by the differing focus on emotions between CBT and PDT? A study by Ulvenes and colleagues (2012) looked at this question. This study is a follow up study of a randomized controlled trial comparing CBT to PDT for the treatment of cluster C personality traits (i.e. individuals who have trouble in experiencing and expressing emotions, and in developing close relationships). Fifty clients were randomized to either CBT or PDT, therapy was short term, and therapists were experienced and competent in delivering their therapy. In the previous study the authors reported that CBT and PDT were both equally effective in treating clients with cluster C personality disorder. In the current study, the authors found that therapist avoidance of affect was associated with developing a greater bond with patients in both CBT and PDT. That is, Cluster C patients liked their therapists better if the therapists avoided talking about the clients’ feelings. However, focusing on affect in PDT was also associated with positive outcome. In other words, therapists who avoided talking about emotions in PDT helped the patient like the therapist better, but this was counterproductive for good outcome. PDT therapists had to manage to create a bond despite their focus on affect in order to achieve good outcomes. On the other hand, focusing on affect in CBT was associated with poorer outcome. That is, therapists who avoided affect in CBT, which is consistent with the treatment model, had clients who experienced both a better bond and better outcomes. Therapeutic alliance is important for all therapies, but may operate quite differently depending on how much the therapy focuses on affect (PDT) or on cognitions (CBT).

Practice Implications

PDT therapists working with cluster C patients have to negotiate a complex task of maintaining a bond despite the treatment model’s focus on emotions in order to achieve good outcomes. CBT therapists will do well to be consistent with the treatment model and focus primarily on cognitions to help with the bond and promote good outcomes. CBT therapists in particular may need to develop a strong bond before agreeing on tasks and goals, which are also keys to a therapeutic alliance.

Author email: pal.ulvenes@modum-bad.no