Centre for Global Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; and Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Department of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Belgium; and Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Br J Psychiatry. 2023 Feb;222(2):67-73. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2022.116.
Understanding how and under what circumstances a highly effective psychological intervention, improved symptoms of depression is important to maximise its clinical effectiveness.
To address this complexity, we estimate the indirect effects of potentially important mediators to improve symptoms of depression (measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)) in the Healthy Activity Program trial.
Interventional in(direct) effects were used to decompose the total effect of the intervention on PHQ-9 scores into the direct and indirect effects. The following indirect effects were considered: characteristics of sessions, represented by the number of sessions and homework completed; behavioural activation, according to an adapted version of the Behavioural Activation for Depression Scale - Short Form; and extra sessions offered to participants who did not respond to the intervention.
Of the total effect of the intervention measured through the difference in PHQ-9 scores between treatment arms (mean difference: -2.1, bias-corrected 95% CI -3.2 to -1.5), 34% was mediated through improved levels of behavioural activation (mean difference: -0.7, bias-corrected 95% CI -1.2 to -0.4). There was no evidence to support the mediating role of characteristics of the sessions nor the extra sessions offered to participants who did not respond to the treatment.
Findings from our robust mediation analyses confirmed the importance of targeting behavioural activation. Contrary to published literature, our findings suggest that neither the number of sessions nor proportion of homework completed improved outcomes. Moreover, in this context, alternative treatments other than extra sessions should be considered for patients who do not respond to the intervention.
了解一种高度有效的心理干预措施如何以及在何种情况下能够改善抑郁症状,对于最大限度地提高其临床效果至关重要。
为了解决这一复杂性问题,我们在“健康活动计划试验”中,对可能重要的中介变量进行了估计,以改善抑郁症状(用患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)来衡量)。
采用干预(间接)效应来分解干预对 PHQ-9 评分的总效应,将其分为直接效应和间接效应。考虑了以下间接效应:以完成的疗程数和家庭作业量来表示的疗程特征;根据行为激活治疗抑郁量表-短表改编的行为激活;以及为未对干预产生反应的参与者提供的额外疗程。
在治疗组之间通过 PHQ-9 评分差异测量的干预总效应(平均差异:-2.1,校正偏倚 95%置信区间-3.2 至-1.5)中,有 34%是通过行为激活水平的改善来介导的(平均差异:-0.7,校正偏倚 95%置信区间-1.2 至-0.4)。没有证据支持疗程特征或为未对治疗产生反应的参与者提供额外疗程的中介作用。
我们的稳健中介分析结果证实了靶向行为激活的重要性。与已发表的文献相反,我们的研究结果表明,疗程数量和家庭作业完成比例都没有改善结果。此外,在这种情况下,对于那些对干预没有反应的患者,应该考虑提供额外疗程以外的替代治疗方法。