Clinical Effectiveness Of Cognitive Therapy Research Articles

Clinical effectiveness of cognitive therapy v. interpersonal psychotherapy for depression: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Although both cognitive therapy (CT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) have been shown to be effective treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD), it is not clear yet whether one therapy outperforms the other with regard to severity and course of the disorder. This study examined the clinical effectiveness of CT v. IPT in a large sample of depressed patients seeking treatment in a Dutch outpatient mental health clinic. We tested whether one of the treatments was superior to the other at post-treatment and at 5 months follow-up. Furthermore, we tested whether active treatment was superior to no treatment. We also assessed whether initial depression severity moderated the effect of time and condition and tested for therapist differences. Depressed adults (n=182) were randomized to either CT (n=76), IPT (n=75) or a 2-month waiting list control (WLC) condition (n=31). Main outcome was depression severity, measured with the Beck Depression Inventory - II (BDI-II), assessed at baseline, 2, 3, and 7 months (treatment phase) and monthly up to 5 months follow-up (8-12 months). No differential effects between CT and IPT were found. Both treatments exceeded response in the WLC condition, and led to considerable improvement in depression severity that was sustained up to 1 year. Baseline depression severity did not moderate the effect of time and condition. Within our power and time ranges, CT and IPT appeared not to differ in the treatment of depression in the acute phase and beyond.

The clinical effectiveness of cognitive therapy for depression in an outpatient clinic

BackgroundCognitive therapy (CT) has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of depression in numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, little evidence is available that speaks to the effectiveness of this treatment under routine clinical conditions. MethodThis paper examines outcomes of depressed individuals seeking cognitive therapy at an outpatient clinic (N=217, Center for Cognitive Therapy; CCT). Outcomes were then compared to those of participants in a large NIMH-funded RCT of cognitive therapy and medications as treatments for depression. ResultsThe CCT is shown to be a clinically representative setting, and 61% of participants experienced reliable change in symptoms over the course of treatment; of those, 45% (36% of the total sample) met criteria for recovery by the end of treatment. Participants at CCT had similar outcomes to participants treated in the RCT, but there was some evidence that those with more severe symptoms at intake demonstrated greater improvement in the RCT than their counterparts at CCT. LimitationsThe CCT may not be representative of all outpatient settings, and the structure of treatment there was considerably different from that in the RCT. Treatment fidelity was not assessed at CCT. ConclusionsDepressed individuals treated with cognitive therapy in a routine clinical care setting showed a significant improvement in symptoms. When compared with outcomes evidenced in RCTs, there was little evidence of superior outcomes in either setting. However, for more severe participants, outcomes were found to be superior when treatment was delivered within an RCT than in an outpatient setting. Clinicians treating such patients in non-research settings may thus benefit from making modifications to treatment protocols to more closely resemble research settings.