University of Sheffield.
University of Sheffield, and Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust.
Behav Ther. 2019 Sep;50(5):864-885. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2019.01.003. Epub 2019 Jan 29.
The evidence base for behavioral activation (BA) as a front-line treatment for depression is grounded in individual delivery. No valid previous meta-analytic reviews of BA delivered in groups have been conducted. This study therefore examined the efficacy and acceptability of group BA drawn from clinical trial evidence. Randomized controlled trials of group BA were identified using a comprehensive literature search. Depression outcomes at posttreatment/follow-up, recovery and dropout rates were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis. Treatment moderators were analyzed using meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Nineteen trials were quantitatively synthesized. Depression outcomes postgroup BA treatment were superior to controls (SMD 0.72, CI 0.34 to 1.10, k=13, N=461) and were equivalent to other active therapies (SMD 0.14, CI -0.18 to 0.46, k=15, N=526). Outcomes were maintained at follow-up for group BA and moderators of treatment outcome were limited. The dropout rate for group BA (14%) was no different from other active treatments for depression (17%). Further research is required to refine the conditions for optimum delivery of group BA and define robust moderators and mediators of outcome. However, BA delivered in groups produces a moderate to large effect on depressive symptoms and should be considered an appropriate front-line treatment option.
行为激活(BA)作为抑郁症一线治疗的证据基础源于个体治疗。以前没有针对小组形式 BA 的有效荟萃分析综述。因此,本研究旨在从临床试验证据中检验小组 BA 的疗效和可接受性。使用全面的文献搜索确定小组 BA 的随机对照试验。提取并分析治疗后/随访时、恢复和脱落率的抑郁结局,使用随机效应荟萃分析进行分析。使用荟萃回归和亚组分析分析治疗调节剂。综合了 19 项试验。小组 BA 治疗后的抑郁结局优于对照组(SMD 0.72,CI 0.34 至 1.10,k=13,N=461),与其他有效治疗方法相当(SMD 0.14,CI -0.18 至 0.46,k=15,N=526)。小组 BA 的结局在随访中得到维持,治疗结果的调节剂有限。小组 BA 的脱落率(14%)与其他有效的抑郁症治疗方法(17%)没有差异。需要进一步研究以完善小组 BA 的最佳实施条件,并确定结果的稳健调节剂和中介因素。然而,小组形式的 BA 对抑郁症状有中度到较大的影响,应被视为一种合适的一线治疗选择。