Melicherova Ursula, Schott Tobias, Köllner Volker, Hoyer Jürgen
Psychosomatic Rehabilitation Research Group, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Front Psychiatry. 2024 Apr 25;15:1229380. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1229380. eCollection 2024.
Behavioral activation (BA) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have shown to be efficacious treatment methods for depression. Previous studies focused mostly on the outpatient treatment either in group or individual setting. The present study aimed at comparing the efficacy of group treatment BA . CBT, when embedded in inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation treatment.
375 inpatients were randomly assigned to either BA (N = 174) or CBT (N = 201). We used established scales for depression such as the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II, self-rating), the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS; expert rating) and the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS) to assess changes over the course of the treatment and at follow-up (4 to 6 months). In addition, we measured disability-related functioning with the Mini-ICF-APP, a rating scale built in reference to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Multilevel models with repeated measures were conducted to examine the differences between groups in relation to change over time with patients' random effects.
Both group formats showed substantial reduction in depressive symptoms at the end of treatment (d= 0.83 BA . d= 1.08 CBT; BDI-II) and at follow-up after 4 to 6 months (d = 0.97 BA . d = 1.33 CBT, BDI-II; and d = 1.17 BA . d = 1.09 CBT, QIDS). There were no significant differences between treatment approaches. At least 50% symptom reduction was achieved by 53.7% and 54.2% in BA . CBT respectively. Reported activation levels increased from pre- to posttreatment (d = 0.76 BA . d = 0.70CBT), while showing loss of increment between the end of the treatment until follow up in both formats (d = 0.28 BA . d = 0.29 CBT).
Both modalities led to significant improvement of symptomatology and functioning at the end of the treatment and at follow-up, thus for the first time demonstrating the practicability of BA in rehabilitation clinics. Considering its lower requirements regarding cognitive abilities and its easier implementation, BA proved to be a good alternative to other psychotherapeutic treatments.
行为激活疗法(BA)和认知行为疗法(CBT)已被证明是治疗抑郁症的有效方法。以往的研究主要集中在门诊的团体或个体治疗。本研究旨在比较团体治疗中BA与CBT在住院身心康复治疗中的疗效。
375名住院患者被随机分配到BA组(N = 174)或CBT组(N = 201)。我们使用既定的抑郁量表,如贝克抑郁量表第二版(BDI-II,自评)、抑郁症状快速量表(QIDS;专家评定)和抑郁行为激活量表(BADS),来评估治疗过程中和随访(4至6个月)期间的变化。此外,我们使用Mini-ICF-APP测量与残疾相关的功能,这是一个参照《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》(ICF)构建的评定量表。采用重复测量的多水平模型,以患者的随机效应来检验两组随时间变化的差异。
两种团体治疗形式在治疗结束时(d = 0.83 BA,d = 1.08 CBT;BDI-II)以及4至6个月后的随访中(d = 0.97 BA,d = 1.33 CBT,BDI-II;d = 1.17 BA,d = 1.09 CBT,QIDS),抑郁症状均有显著减轻。两种治疗方法之间没有显著差异。BA组和CBT组分别有53.7%和54.2%的患者症状减轻至少50%。报告的激活水平从治疗前到治疗后有所增加(d = 0.76 BA,d = 0.70 CBT),但在两种治疗形式中,从治疗结束到随访期间激活水平的增加有所下降(d = 0.28 BA,d = 0.29 CBT)。
两种治疗方式在治疗结束时和随访时均使症状和功能有显著改善,从而首次证明了BA在康复诊所的实用性。考虑到其对认知能力的要求较低且更容易实施,BA被证明是其他心理治疗方法的一个很好的替代方案。