University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America.
J Affect Disord. 2023 Jul 15;333:543-552. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.04.092. Epub 2023 Apr 28.
Expert consensus guidelines recommend Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT), interventions that were historically delivered face-to-face, as first-line treatments for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Despite the ubiquity of telehealth following the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about differential outcomes with CBT versus IPT delivered in-person (IP) or via telehealth (TH) or whether working alliance is affected.
Adults meeting DSM-5 criteria for MDD were randomly assigned to either 8 sessions of IPT or CBT (group). Mid-trial, COVID-19 forced a change of therapy delivery from IP to TH (study phase). We compared changes in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) scores for individuals by group and phase: CBT-IP (n = 24), CBT-TH (n = 11), IPT-IP (n = 25) and IPT-TH (n = 17).
HRSD-17 scores declined significantly from pre to post treatment (pre: M = 17.7, SD = 4.4 vs. post: M = 11.7, SD = 5.9; p < .001; d = 1.45) without significant group or phase effects. WAI scores did not differ by group or phase. Number of completed therapy sessions was greater for TH (M = 7.8, SD = 1.2) relative to IP (M = 7.2, SD = 1.6) (Mann-Whitney U = 387.50, z = -2.24, p = .025).
Participants were not randomly assigned to IP versus TH. Sample size is small.
This study provides preliminary evidence supporting the efficacy of both brief IPT and CBT, delivered by either TH or IP, for depression. It showed that working alliance is preserved in TH, and delivery via TH may improve therapy adherence. Prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively test efficacy of brief IPT and CBT delivered via TH versus IP.
专家共识指南建议将认知行为疗法(CBT)和人际心理治疗(IPT)作为一线治疗重度抑郁症(MDD)的干预措施,这些干预措施在历史上都是面对面进行的。尽管在 COVID-19 大流行之后远程医疗已经普及,但对于 CBT 与 IPT 面对面(IP)或通过远程医疗(TH)治疗的差异结果知之甚少,也不知道工作联盟是否会受到影响。
符合 DSM-5 重度抑郁症标准的成年人被随机分配到 8 节 IPT 或 CBT(组)。在试验中期,COVID-19 迫使治疗从 IP 改为 TH(研究阶段)。我们比较了按组和阶段(CBT-IP:n=24;CBT-TH:n=11;IPT-IP:n=25;IPT-TH:n=17)个体汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HRSD-17)和工作联盟量表(WAI)评分的变化。
HRSD-17 评分从治疗前到治疗后显著下降(治疗前:M=17.7,SD=4.4;治疗后:M=11.7,SD=5.9;p<.001;d=1.45),但无显著的组间或阶段间差异。WAI 评分在组间和阶段间没有差异。TH 的完成治疗次数(M=7.8,SD=1.2)多于 IP(M=7.2,SD=1.6)(Mann-Whitney U=387.50,z=-2.24,p=0.025)。
参与者不是随机分配到 IP 还是 TH。样本量较小。
本研究初步支持了简短 IPT 和 CBT 的有效性,无论是通过 TH 还是 IP 提供,都可用于治疗抑郁症。它表明在 TH 中保留了工作联盟,并且通过 TH 提供可能会提高治疗依从性。需要前瞻性、随机对照试验来明确测试通过 TH 与 IP 提供的简短 IPT 和 CBT 的疗效。