Klaus Linde1, Kirsten Sigterman2, Levente Kriston3, Gerta Rücker4, Susanne Jamil2, Karin Meissner5, Antonius Schneider2. 1. Institute of General Practice, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany Klaus.Linde@tum.de. 2. Institute of General Practice, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Institute of General Practice, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany Institute of Medical Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review of the currently available evidence on whether psychological treatments are effective for treating depressed primary care patients in comparison with usual care or placebo, taking the type of therapy and its delivery mode into account. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing a psychological treatment with a usual care or a placebo control in adult, depressed, primary care patients were identified by searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. At least 2 reviewers extracted information from included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using posttreatment depression scores as outcome. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies with 5,159 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control, the effect (standardized mean difference) at completion of treatment was -0.30 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.13) for face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), -0.14 (-0.40 to 0.12) for face-to-face problem-solving therapy, -0.24 (-0.47 to -0.02) for face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy, -0.28 (-0.44 to -0.12) for other face-to-face psychological interventions, -0.43 (-0.62 to -0.24) for remote therapist-led CBT, -0.56 (-1.57 to 0.45) for remote therapist-led problem-solving therapy, -0.40 (-0.69 to -0.11) for guided self-help CBT, and -0.27 (-0.44 to -0.10) for no or minimal contact CBT. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that psychological treatments are effective in depressed primary care patients. For CBT approaches, substantial evidence suggests that interventions that are less resource intensive might have effects similar to more intense treatments.
PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review of the currently available evidence on whether psychological treatments are effective for treating depressed primary care patients in comparison with usual care or placebo, taking the type of therapy and its delivery mode into account. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing a psychological treatment with a usual care or a placebo control in adult, depressed, primary care patients were identified by searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PsycINFO up to December 2013. At least 2 reviewers extracted information from included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using posttreatment depression scores as outcome. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies with 5,159 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with control, the effect (standardized mean difference) at completion of treatment was -0.30 (95% CI, -0.48 to -0.13) for face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), -0.14 (-0.40 to 0.12) for face-to-face problem-solving therapy, -0.24 (-0.47 to -0.02) for face-to-face interpersonal psychotherapy, -0.28 (-0.44 to -0.12) for other face-to-face psychological interventions, -0.43 (-0.62 to -0.24) for remote therapist-led CBT, -0.56 (-1.57 to 0.45) for remote therapist-led problem-solving therapy, -0.40 (-0.69 to -0.11) for guided self-help CBT, and -0.27 (-0.44 to -0.10) for no or minimal contact CBT. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that psychological treatments are effective in depressed primary care patients. For CBT approaches, substantial evidence suggests that interventions that are less resource intensive might have effects similar to more intense treatments.
Authors: Koen Demyttenaere; Ronny Bruffaerts; Jose Posada-Villa; Isabelle Gasquet; Viviane Kovess; Jean Pierre Lepine; Matthias C Angermeyer; Sebastian Bernert; Giovanni de Girolamo; Pierluigi Morosini; Gabriella Polidori; Takehiko Kikkawa; Norito Kawakami; Yutaka Ono; Tadashi Takeshima; Hidenori Uda; Elie G Karam; John A Fayyad; Aimee N Karam; Zeina N Mneimneh; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Guilherme Borges; Carmen Lara; Ron de Graaf; Johan Ormel; Oye Gureje; Yucun Shen; Yueqin Huang; Mingyuan Zhang; Jordi Alonso; Josep Maria Haro; Gemma Vilagut; Evelyn J Bromet; Semyon Gluzman; Charles Webb; Ronald C Kessler; Kathleen R Merikangas; James C Anthony; Michael R Von Korff; Philip S Wang; Traolach S Brugha; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Sing Lee; Steven Heeringa; Beth-Ellen Pennell; Alan M Zaslavsky; T Bedirhan Ustun; Somnath Chatterji Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D Elizabeth Jesse; Hui Bian; Elizabeth C Banks; Bradley N Gaynes; Steve D Hollon; Edward R Newton Journal: Issues Ment Health Nurs Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 1.835
Authors: Jin E Kim-Mozeleski; Janice Y Tsoh; Ginny Gildengorin; Lien H Cao; Tiffany Ho; Sarita Kohli; Hy Lam; Ching Wong; Susan Stewart; Stephen J McPhee; Tung T Nguyen Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2017-11-11
Authors: Martin P Paulus; Murray B Stein; Michelle G Craske; Susan Bookheimer; Charles T Taylor; Alan N Simmons; Natasha Sidhu; Katherine S Young; Boyang Fan Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Stacey Kaltman; Maria Rosa Watson; Marcela Campoli; Adriana Serrano; Nicholas Talisman; Laura Kirkpatrick; Mihriye Mete; Bonnie L Green Journal: Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Francisco Rodriguez-Pulido; Gema Castillo; Sofiane Hamrioui; Laura Delgado Martin; Pilar Vazquez-Beltrán; Isabel de la Torre-Díez; Manuel A Franco-Martín Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 4.460