BACKGROUND: There are 14 randomized trials that indicate the benefits of various adjunctive psychosocial interventions for bipolar disorder. Efficient planning of future interventions requires identification of the common, putatively active components of these treatments. We investigated whether different forms of psychotherapy consisted of overlapping versus modality-specific ingredients. METHODS: We identified five categories of active psychosocial treatment in 14 trials: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; 4 studies), family psychoeducation (5 studies), interpersonal and social rhythm therapy (IPSRT; 2 studies), individual psychoeducation (3 studies), and group psychoeducation (5 studies). In this study, 31 investigators and therapists who participated in these trials completed a questionnaire in which they rated the frequency of 17 treatment strategies in their active and treatment-as-usual (TAU) conditions. A content analysis of the results of this questionnaire was then done, in which the active treatments were compared with each other and with TAU on the frequency of use of each strategy. RESULTS: The active modalities were distinguished from TAU by more frequent use of problem-solving and interventions to enhance patients' ability to cope with the stigma of mental illness. With regard to specific approaches, CBT made frequent use of cognitive restructuring and self-rated mood charts. The signature features of IPSRT-regulation of sleep/wake cycles and daily routines-were also regular features in the CBT and group psychoeducation interventions. Communication skills training was a distinctive feature of family treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas active psychosocial interventions for bipolar disorder have common ingredients, they can also be distinguished from each other and from TAU by the degree to which specific strategies are emphasized. Future research should compare the treatment ingredients identified in this study in terms of their ability to bring about clinical change.
BACKGROUND: There are 14 randomized trials that indicate the benefits of various adjunctive psychosocial interventions for bipolar disorder. Efficient planning of future interventions requires identification of the common, putatively active components of these treatments. We investigated whether different forms of psychotherapy consisted of overlapping versus modality-specific ingredients. METHODS: We identified five categories of active psychosocial treatment in 14 trials: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; 4 studies), family psychoeducation (5 studies), interpersonal and social rhythm therapy (IPSRT; 2 studies), individual psychoeducation (3 studies), and group psychoeducation (5 studies). In this study, 31 investigators and therapists who participated in these trials completed a questionnaire in which they rated the frequency of 17 treatment strategies in their active and treatment-as-usual (TAU) conditions. A content analysis of the results of this questionnaire was then done, in which the active treatments were compared with each other and with TAU on the frequency of use of each strategy. RESULTS: The active modalities were distinguished from TAU by more frequent use of problem-solving and interventions to enhance patients' ability to cope with the stigma of mental illness. With regard to specific approaches, CBT made frequent use of cognitive restructuring and self-rated mood charts. The signature features of IPSRT-regulation of sleep/wake cycles and daily routines-were also regular features in the CBT and group psychoeducation interventions. Communication skills training was a distinctive feature of family treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas active psychosocial interventions for bipolar disorder have common ingredients, they can also be distinguished from each other and from TAU by the degree to which specific strategies are emphasized. Future research should compare the treatment ingredients identified in this study in terms of their ability to bring about clinical change.
Authors: Mark S Bauer; Linda McBride; William O Williford; Henry Glick; Bruce Kinosian; Lori Altshuler; Thomas Beresford; Amy M Kilbourne; Martha Sajatovic Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Roger D Weiss; Margaret L Griffin; Monika E Kolodziej; Shelly F Greenfield; Lisa M Najavits; Dennis C Daley; Heidi Ray Doreau; John A Hennen Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Mark S Bauer; Linda McBride; William O Williford; Henry Glick; Bruce Kinosian; Lori Altshuler; Thomas Beresford; Amy M Kilbourne; Martha Sajatovic Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Lakshmi N Yatham; Sidney H Kennedy; Claire O'Donovan; Sagar Parikh; Glenda MacQueen; Roger McIntyre; Verinder Sharma; Peter Silverstone; Martin Alda; Philippe Baruch; Serge Beaulieu; Andree Daigneault; Roumen Milev; L Trevor Young; Arun Ravindran; Ayal Schaffer; Mary Connolly; Chris P Gorman Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2005 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: David J Miklowitz; Michael W Otto; Ellen Frank; Noreen A Reilly-Harrington; Stephen R Wisniewski; Jane N Kogan; Andrew A Nierenberg; Joseph R Calabrese; Lauren B Marangell; Laszlo Gyulai; Mako Araga; Jodi M Gonzalez; Edwin R Shirley; Michael E Thase; Gary S Sachs Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-04
Authors: Jedediah M Bopp; David J Miklowitz; Guy M Goodwin; Will Stevens; Jennifer M Rendell; John R Geddes Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: A Pfennig; J Conell; P Ritter; D Ritter; E Severus; T D Meyer; M Hautzinger; J Wolff; F Godemann; A Reif; M Bauer Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.214