Search

Background Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) have been found to have restricted capacity for mentalization, and it is possible that this constitutes a vulnerability factor for developing depression. Due to its focus on linking depressive symptomatology to emotions and interpersonal relations, it was hypothesized that Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) would improve mentalization more than Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Methods In a randomized controlled trial of 90 patients undergoing IPT and CBT for MDD, Reflective Functioning (RF) was rated from Adult Attachment and from Depression-Specific Reflective Functioning (DSRF) Interviews before and after therapy. Treatment outcome was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Results The interaction between time and treatment approach was statistically significant, with RF improving significantly more in IPT than in CBT. Change in RF was not correlated with change in depression. The difference in DSRF ratings before and after therapy was not statistically significant for any of the treatments. Conclusions IPT may improve mentalization more than CBT. However, although RF increased significantly in IPT, the mean level was still low after therapy. A limitation of the study is the large amount of post-treatment missing data. More research is needed to understand the potential role of mentalization in symptom reduction.

Objective Even though the early alliance has been shown to robustly predict posttreatment outcomes, the question whether alliance leads to symptom reduction or symptom reduction leads to a better alliance remains unresolved. To better understand the relation between alliance and symptoms early in therapy, we meta-analyzed the lagged session-by-session within-patient effects of alliance and symptoms from Sessions 1 to 7. Method We applied a 2-stage individual participant data meta-analytic approach. Based on the data sets of 17 primary studies from 9 countries that comprised 5,350 participants, we first calculated standardized session-by-session within-patient coefficients. Second, we meta-analyzed these coefficients by using random-effects models to calculate omnibus effects across the studies. Results In line with previous meta-analyses, we found that early alliance predicted posttreatment outcome. We identified significant reciprocal within-patient effects between alliance and symptoms within the first 7 sessions. Cross-level interactions indicated that higher alliances and lower symptoms positively impacted the relation between alliance and symptoms in the subsequent session. Conclusion The findings provide empirical evidence that in the early phase of therapy, symptoms and alliance were reciprocally related to one other, often resulting in a positive upward spiral of higher alliance/lower symptoms that predicted higher alliances/lower symptoms in the subsequent sessions. Two-stage individual participant data meta-analyses have the potential to move the field forward by generating and interlinking well-replicable process-based knowledge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of adherence to both specific technique factors and facilitative condition variables (e.g., therapists involvement, understanding and support) in Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT). In addition, we were interested in whether the effect of therapist adherence would depend on the level of the working alliance. Method: Three sessions each from 74 patients diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder who were randomized to 14 sessions of IPT or CBT were rated for adherence using a modified version of The Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating Scale-6 (CSPRS-6). Data was analyzed using Multilevel Modeling. Results: No effects of adherence to specific factors on outcome were found in neither CBT nor IPT. Facilitative conditions were associated with better outcome in CBT but not in IPT, even after adjustment for the quality of the working alliance. No interaction effects were found. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of relational factors in CBT, but do not support the need for specific adherence to any of the two treatments. Possible explanations of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Background Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) are both evidence-based treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). Several head-to-head comparisons have been made, mostly in the United States. In this trial, we compared the two treatments in a small-town outpatient psychiatric clinic in Sweden. The patients had failed previous primary care treatment and had extensive Axis-II comorbidity. Outcome measures were reduction of depressive symptoms and attrition rate. Methods Ninety-six psychiatric patients with MDD (DSM-IV) were randomized to 14 sessions of CBT (n = 48) or IPT (n = 48). A noninferiority design was used with the hypothesis that IPT would be noninferior to CBT. A three-point difference on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used as noninferiority margin. Results IPT passed the noninferiority test. In the ITT group, 53.5% (23/43) of the IPT patients and 51.0% (24/47) of the CBT patients were reliably improved, and 20.9% (9/43) and 19.1% (9/47), respectively, were recovered (last BDI score

Objective Developments in working alliance theory posit that the therapist's attention to fluctuations in the alliance throughout treatment is crucial. Accordingly, researchers have begun studying the alliance as a time-varying mechanism of change rather than as a static moderator. However, most studies to date suffer from bias owing to the nonindependence of error term and predictors (endogeneity). Method Patients with major depressive disorder (N = 84) from a randomized trial comparing cognitive-behavioral therapy with interpersonal psychotherapy filled out the Beck Depression Inventory-II before each session. After each session, patients and therapists filled out the Working Alliance Inventory short forms. Data were analyzed using the generalized method of moments for dynamic panel data, a method commonly applied in econometrics to eliminate endogeneity bias. Results Improvement of the alliance predicted significant reduction of depressive symptoms by the next session (patient rating: b = -4.35, SE = 1.96, p = .026, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-8.19, -0.51]; therapist rating: b = -4.92, SE = 1.84, p = .008, 95% CI [-8.53, -1.31]). In addition, there was a significant delayed effect on the session after the next (patient rating: b = -3.25, SE = 1.20, p = .007, 95% CI [-5.61, -0.89]; therapist rating: b = -5.44, SE = 1.92, p = .005, 95% CI [-9.20, -1.68]). Conclusion If the quality of patient-therapist alliance is improved in a given treatment session, depressive symptoms will likely decrease by the next session. The most important limitation of this study is its relatively small sample size. (PsycINFO Database Record

Emotional reactions are a vital part of the therapeutic relationship. The Feeling Word Checklist–24 (FWC-24) is an instrument asking the clinician (or the patient) to report to what degree he or she has experienced various feelings during a therapeutic interaction. The aim of this study was to assess the factor structure of the clinician-rated FWC-24 when taking dependencies in the data into account. The sample was deliberately heterogeneous and consisted of 4,443 ratings made by 101 psychotherapists working with different psychotherapy methods in relation to 191 patients of different ages, genders, and with different primary diagnoses. A random intercept-only model revealed large intraclass correlation coefficients at the therapist level, indicating that a multilevel analysis was warranted. A two-level exploratory factor analysis with therapists as the between level and patients plus sessions as the within level was conducted. The items from FWC-24 were found to be best represented by four factors on the between level and four factors on the within level. The factor structures were largely similar on the two levels and were labeled Engaged, Inadequate, Relaxed, and Moved. The different factors explained different amounts of variance on different levels, indicating that some factors are more therapist dependent and some more patient dependent.

Although considerable attention has been paid to the concept of mentalization in psychotherapy, there is little research on mentalization as predictor of psychotherapy process and outcome. Using data from a randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for depression, we studied mentalization in 85 outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It was hypothesized that patients showing lower capacity for mentalization would experience poorer quality of alliance and worse outcome.Depressive symptoms were measured each session using the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Mentalization was measured as reflective functioning (RF) on a slightly shortened version of the Adult Attachment Interview. A measure of depression-specific reflective functioning (DSRF), measuring mentalization about depressive symptoms, was also used. The Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form Revised was completed after each session by both therapist and patient. Longitudinal multilevel modeling was used to analyze data.The patients had on average very low RF (M = 2.62, SD = 1.22). Lower pretreatment RF/DSRF predicted significantly lower therapist-rated working alliance during treatment. RF did not affect patient-rated alliance, but lower DSRF predicted lower patient-rated alliance across treatment. Patients with higher RF/DSRF had better outcomes on self-rated depression.The findings showed lower than normal capacity for mentalization in patients with MDD. Lower RF/DSRF predicted worse treatment outcome. More research is needed to understand how RF affects psychotherapy response and how RF is affected after recovery from depression.

Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) are both evidence-based treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). Several head-to-head comparisons have been made, mostly in the United States. In this trial, we compared the two treatments in a small-town outpatient psychiatric clinic in Sweden. The patients had failed previous primary care treatment and had extensive Axis-II comorbidity. Outcome measures were reduction of depressive symptoms and attrition rate.Ninety-six psychiatric patients with MDD (DSM-IV) were randomized to 14 sessions of CBT (n = 48) or IPT (n = 48). A noninferiority design was used with the hypothesis that IPT would be noninferior to CBT. A three-point difference on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) was used as noninferiority margin.IPT passed the noninferiority test. In the ITT group, 53.5% (23/43) of the IPT patients and 51.0% (24/47) of the CBT patients were reliably improved, and 20.9% (9/43) and 19.1% (9/47), respectively, were recovered (last BDI score10). The dropout rate was significantly higher in CBT (40%; 19/47) compared to IPT (19%; 8/43). Statistically controlling for antidepressant medication use did not change the results.IPT was noninferior to CBT in a sample of depressed psychiatric patients in a community-based outpatient clinic. CBT had significantly more dropouts than IPT, indicating that CBT may be experienced as too demanding. Since about half the patients did not recover, there is a need for further treatment development for these patients. The study should be considered an effectiveness trial, with strong external validity but some limitations in internal validity.