Search

Background: Metacognitive training for depression (D‐MCT) is a novel low‐intensity group training for economic treatment of depression. Previous studies demonstrate its efficacy in moderately depressed outpatients. The present study evaluated efficacy and patients' perspective of the D‐MCT in severely depressed psychiatric inpatients. Methods: In a randomized‐controlled trial, 75 individuals with a major depressive disorder (MDD) were allocated to D‐MCT versus euthymic therapy as add‐on (twice a week) to cognitive‐behavioural‐based (CBT) inpatient‐care. Depressive symptoms (HDRS, BDI), dysfunctional (meta)cognition (DAS, MCQ‐30) and subjective appraisal were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks (post) and 3 months (follow‐up). Results: Participants in both conditions showed a large decline in depression at post and follow‐up‐assessment. No superior add‐effect of D‐MCT versus active control emerged for depression severity on top of the inpatient care. However, among patients with a diagnosis of MDD with no (vs. at least one) comorbidity, D‐MCT participants showed a larger decline in depressive (meta‐)cognition at follow‐up with medium‐to‐large effect sizes. D‐MCT was evaluated as superior in overall appraisal, treatment preference, motivation and satisfaction. Limitations: The follow‐up time interval of 3 months may have been too short to detect long‐term effects. There is emerging evidence that modification of (meta)cognition unfolds its full effects only with time. Effects of CBT inpatient‐care on outcome parameters cannot be differentiated. Conclusions: Although D‐MCT as an add‐on was not superior in complete case analyses, results suggest greater benefit for patients with MDD and no comorbidity. D‐MCT proved feasible in acute‐psychiatric inpatient‐care and was highly accepted by patients. Future studies should investigate the role of modified (meta)cognition on long‐term treatment outcome, including dropout and relapse rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies have confirmed the efficacy of the cognitive intervention Association Splitting (AS) in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) when applied as a self-help technique. AS aims to alter symptom-provoking automated cognitive networks of OC-related stimuli by building new or strengthening established but weak neutral associations. The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance and benefits of therapist-assisted AS as an add-on to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). One hundred and nine patients with OCD who were undergoing CBT were randomly assigned to either AS or cognitive remediation (CR). Both groups were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks and 6 months later. The primary measure was the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Although patients’ acceptance of AS was good, AS was not better than CR regarding overall symptom severity. However, a larger decrease was found from baseline to 6 months follow-up in AS regarding avoidance. Moreover, subsidiary analyses excluding control patients who had obtained information about AS indicated its superiority. Because superiority of AS was found in post hoc analyses excluding control patients who had obtained information on AS, we suggest that contagion effects deserve consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss a study comparing metacognitive training for depression (D-MCT) and health training (HT). Topics covered include the development of D-MCT as a cognitive behavioral therapy-based group intervention, improvement in depressive symptoms through D-MCT, and the persistence of residual symptoms. Also mentioned are overall treatment satisfaction and the long-term goal of improving dissemination of effective treatments for depression.

Many individuals suffering from depression do not actively seek treatment. Self-help strategies represent low-threshold treatment options that are particularly relevant for milder cases. The present study addressed two important issues: (1) we examined depressed individuals' motives and attitudes that may represent barriers to face-to-face treatment; (2) we examined if the participation in an online treatment program facilitates or compromises their willingness to undergo face-to-face treatment. We recruited 210 participants with depression for a trial on the efficacy of an online treatment program for depression. Participants were randomly allocated either to a self-help treatment ( D eprexis) or to a wait-list control group. All participants filled out a newly developed 42-item questionnaire called Psychotherapy Expectations, Concerns, and Hopes Inventory ( PECHI ). The scale measures attitudes toward face-to-face treatment and was administered at baseline and 8 weeks later. Principal component analysis of the PECHI revealed five dimensions: hope for symptomatic improvement, fear of poor alliance with the therapist, skill acquisition, skepticism and resentment of psychotherapy, and self-stigma. Attitudes toward treatment were stable over time and neither modulated by group status nor by self-reported or objective symptom decline. Correlation analyses revealed that current levels of depression and well-being were potent predictors of attitudes toward treatment, suggesting that when the patient feels more depressed, doubts about the effectiveness of therapy emerge more strongly. To conclude, results suggest that Deprexis neither promotes nor reduces negative attitudes toward psychotherapy, nor does it increase barriers to enter face-to-face treatments. An alarming paradox emerged: when a depressed person is in greatest need of help, motivation to seek face-to-face treatment is lowest. Depression and Anxiety 00:1-11, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our understanding of how patients perceive and evaluate treatment for depression is scarce. Because dropout rates are high among individuals in treatment for depression, it is necessary to expand the focus of research to patients' perspectives on the treatment they receive. The aim of the two studies presented was to evaluate patient acceptance of Metacognitive Training for Depression (D-MCT), a highly standardized group intervention.Methods: Acceptability was evaluated in an open case series (Study 1, N = 70) and a randomized controlled trial (RCT; Study 2, N = 84). In both studies, participants rated their subjective appraisal on a 15-item questionnaire after administration of eight D-MCT modules. In Study 1, a subsample of patients also evaluated modules individually after each session. In Study 2, ratings were compared to an active control intervention (walking and psychoeducation sessions), and assessment was repeated at 6-months follow-up.Results: High rates of acceptance of the D-MCT were demonstrated in both studies immediately after treatment (post-assessment). In addition, the RCT showed better evaluations for the D-MCT than for the control condition at post-assessment as well as at 6-months follow-up. Weekly session evaluations in Study 1 indicated good acceptance for individual modules.Limitations: Evaluations could only be obtained from completers; blinding of patients and therapists was not possible.Conclusions: Results of the two studies suggest that D-MCT represents a promising group treatment in terms of patient acceptance and provide an example of how patients' feedback may be used to improve treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]