Research Department of Mental Health Sciences, University College London Medical School, Riding House Street, London, UK.
Behav Res Ther. 2011 Aug;49(8):433-40. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.05.005. Epub 2011 May 19.
Common factors predict outcome in psychotherapy, but there is a dearth of research defining and standardising control conditions. A description and evaluation of a talking control (TC) used in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for older people with depression in primary care is presented.
Two hundred and four older people participated in a RCT of CBT for people with a Geriatric Mental State diagnosis of Depression (Serfaty et al., 2009). One in 10 session of CBT or TC were evaluated using the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS) to examine common and specific factors in therapy.
1005 therapy sessions were delivered; 508 for TC and 497 CBT. There were higher total CTS scores (P<0.001) for CBT (median 55.0; QR 52.0-55.0) than TC (median 23.0; QR 21.0-24.0). CBT scored better than TC for specific techniques (median 23.7; IQR 21.0-24.0 versus median 0.70.0; IQR 0.0-0.0, P<0.001). Both interventions scored highly for interpersonal effectiveness, but no difference was observed. The TC was easily delivered, deemed acceptable by patients and was not associated with harm.
Development, standardization and measurement of a TC intervention is possible and provides a useful comparator in evaluations of effectiveness of CBT.
共同因素可以预测心理治疗的效果,但目前关于定义和标准化对照条件的研究还很少。本文介绍了一种在认知行为疗法(CBT)治疗老年人抑郁症的随机对照试验(RCT)中使用的谈话对照(TC),并对其进行了描述和评估。
204 名老年人参加了一项针对老年人抑郁症(Serfaty 等人,2009 年)的 CBT RCT。每 10 次 CBT 或 TC 中有 1 次接受认知疗法量表(CTS)评估,以检查治疗中的共同和特定因素。
共提供了 1005 次治疗,其中 508 次为 TC,497 次为 CBT。CBT 的总 CTS 评分更高(P<0.001)(中位数 55.0;四分位距 52.0-55.0),而 TC 的总 CTS 评分较低(中位数 23.0;四分位距 21.0-24.0)。CBT 在特定技术方面的评分优于 TC(中位数 23.7;四分位距 21.0-24.0 与中位数 0.7;四分位距 0.0-0.0,P<0.001)。两种干预措施在人际效能方面的得分都很高,但没有差异。TC 很容易实施,患者认为可以接受,且与伤害无关。
TC 干预措施的开发、标准化和测量是可行的,并为 CBT 有效性评估提供了有用的对照。