4.6 Article

Smartphone-Supported versus Full Behavioural Activation for Depression: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126559

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [2011-2476]
  2. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [603098]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background There is need for more cost and time effective treatments for depression. This is the first randomised controlled trial in which a blended treatment - including four face-to-face sessions and a smartphone application - was compared against a full behavioural treatment. Hence, the aim of the current paper was to examine whether a blended smartphone treatment was non-inferior to a full behavioural activation treatment for depression. Methods This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (NCT01819025) comparing a blended treatment (n=46) against a full ten-session treatment (n=47) for people suffering from major depression. Primary outcome measure was the BDI-II, that was administered at pre- and post-treatment, as well as six months after the treatment. Results Results showed significant improvements in both groups across time on the primary outcome measure (within-group Cohen's d=1.35; CI [-0.82, 3.52] to d=1.47; CI [-0.41, 3.35]; between group d=-0.13 CI [-2.37, 2.09] and d=-0.10 CI [-2.53, 2.33]). At the same time, the blended treatment reduced the therapist time with an average of 47%. Conclusions We could not establish whether the blended treatment was non-inferior to a full BA treatment. Nevertheless, this study points to that the blended treatment approach could possibly treat nearly twice as many patients suffering from depression by using a smartphone application as add-on. More studies are needed before we can suggest that the blended treatment method is a promising cost-effective alternative to regular face-to-face treatment for depression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available