Michael E Thase1, Jesse H Wright1, Tracy D Eells1, Marna S Barrett1, Stephen R Wisniewski1, G K Balasubramani1, Paul McCrone1, Gregory K Brown1. 1. From the Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia; the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville; the Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh; and King's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the efficacy and durability of a therapist-supported method for computer-assisted cognitive-behavioral therapy (CCBT) in comparison to standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). METHOD: A total of 154 medication-free patients with major depressive disorder seeking treatment at two university clinics were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of standard CBT (up to 20 sessions of 50 minutes each) or CCBT using the "Good Days Ahead" program. The amount of therapist time in CCBT was planned to be about one-third that in CBT. Outcomes were assessed by independent raters and self-report at baseline, at weeks 8 and 16, and at posttreatment months 3 and 6. The primary test of efficacy was noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the participants completed the 16-week protocol (79% in the CBT group and 82% in the CCBT group). CCBT met a priori criteria for noninferiority to conventional CBT at week 16. The groups did not differ significantly on any measure of psychopathology. Remission rates were similar for the two groups (intent-to-treat rates, 41.6% for the CBT group and 42.9% for the CCBT group). Both groups maintained improvements throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that a method of CCBT that blends Internet-delivered skill-building modules with about 5 hours of therapeutic contact was noninferior to a conventional course of CBT that provided over 8 additional hours of therapist contact. Future studies should focus on dissemination and optimizing therapist support methods to maximize the public health significance of CCBT.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the efficacy and durability of a therapist-supported method for computer-assisted cognitive-behavioral therapy (CCBT) in comparison to standard cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). METHOD: A total of 154 medication-free patients with major depressive disorder seeking treatment at two university clinics were randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of standard CBT (up to 20 sessions of 50 minutes each) or CCBT using the "Good Days Ahead" program. The amount of therapist time in CCBT was planned to be about one-third that in CBT. Outcomes were assessed by independent raters and self-report at baseline, at weeks 8 and 16, and at posttreatment months 3 and 6. The primary test of efficacy was noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the participants completed the 16-week protocol (79% in the CBT group and 82% in the CCBT group). CCBT met a priori criteria for noninferiority to conventional CBT at week 16. The groups did not differ significantly on any measure of psychopathology. Remission rates were similar for the two groups (intent-to-treat rates, 41.6% for the CBT group and 42.9% for the CCBT group). Both groups maintained improvements throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that a method of CCBT that blends Internet-delivered skill-building modules with about 5 hours of therapeutic contact was noninferior to a conventional course of CBT that provided over 8 additional hours of therapist contact. Future studies should focus on dissemination and optimizing therapist support methods to maximize the public health significance of CCBT.
Authors: Steven D Hollon; Robert J DeRubeis; Jan Fawcett; Jay D Amsterdam; Richard C Shelton; John Zajecka; Paula R Young; Robert Gallop Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Erica S Weitz; Steven D Hollon; Jos Twisk; Annemieke van Straten; Marcus J H Huibers; Daniel David; Robert J DeRubeis; Sona Dimidjian; Boadie W Dunlop; Ioana A Cristea; Mahbobeh Faramarzi; Ulrich Hegerl; Robin B Jarrett; Farzan Kheirkhah; Sidney H Kennedy; Roland Mergl; Jeanne Miranda; David C Mohr; A John Rush; Zindel V Segal; Juned Siddique; Anne D Simons; Jeffrey R Vittengl; Pim Cuijpers Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: E Karyotaki; Y Smit; K Holdt Henningsen; M J H Huibers; J Robays; D de Beurs; P Cuijpers Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Simon Gilbody; Elizabeth Littlewood; Catherine Hewitt; Gwen Brierley; Puvan Tharmanathan; Ricardo Araya; Michael Barkham; Peter Bower; Cindy Cooper; Linda Gask; David Kessler; Helen Lester; Karina Lovell; Glenys Parry; David A Richards; Phil Andersen; Sally Brabyn; Sarah Knowles; Charles Shepherd; Debbie Tallon; David White Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-11-11
Authors: Amy Lopez; Sarah Schwenk; Christopher D Schneck; Rachel J Griffin; Matthew C Mishkind Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Jesse H Wright; Laura W McCray; Tracy D Eells; Rangaraj Gopalraj; Laura B Bishop Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Lucinda B Leung; Karen E Dyer; Elizabeth M Yano; Alexander S Young; Lisa V Rubenstein; Alison B Hamilton Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Michael E Thase; Paul McCrone; Marna S Barrett; Tracy D Eells; Stephen R Wisniewski; G K Balasubramani; Gregory K Brown; Jesse H Wright Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 17.659