Barkham M, Shapiro D A, Hardy G E, Rees A
Psychological Therapies Research Centre, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999 Apr;67(2):201-11. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.67.2.201.
A total of 116 clients with a range of subsyndromal depression received 3 therapy sessions: 2 sessions 1 week apart followed by a 3rd session 3 months later (the 2 + 1 model). Clients were stratified for severity on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) as stressed, subclinical, or low-level clinically depressed. In a 2 x 2 design, they received either cognitive-behavioral (CB) or psychodynamic-interpersonal (PI) therapy, either immediately or after a 4-week delay. An initial advantage for the immediate condition disappeared once the delayed-condition clients received treatment. Improvement rates at the end of treatment were 67% (stressed), 72% (subclinical), and 65% (low-level clinically depressed). There were no significant differences between CB and PI treatment methods, with the exception at 1-year follow-up, when the BDI showed a significant advantage for CB. Implications for designing very brief planned interventions are discussed.
共有116名患有不同程度亚综合征抑郁症的患者接受了3次治疗:两次治疗间隔1周,3个月后进行第三次治疗(2 + 1模式)。根据贝克抑郁量表(BDI)的严重程度,将患者分为压力型、亚临床型或轻度临床抑郁型。在2×2设计中,他们要么立即接受认知行为(CB)治疗或心理动力人际(PI)治疗,要么在延迟4周后接受治疗。一旦延迟治疗组的患者接受治疗,立即治疗组的初始优势就消失了。治疗结束时的改善率分别为67%(压力型)、72%(亚临床型)和65%(轻度临床抑郁型)。CB和PI治疗方法之间没有显著差异,但在1年随访时除外,此时BDI显示CB有显著优势。文中讨论了设计非常简短的计划性干预措施的意义。