4.4 Article

A transdiagnostic comparison of enhanced cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT-E) and interpersonal psychotherapy in the treatment of eating disorders

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 64-71

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2015.04.010

Keywords

Eating disorders; Treatment; Cognitive behaviour therapy; Interpersonal psychotherapy

Funding

  1. Principal Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust, London [046386]
  2. Wellcome Trust [046386]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eating disorders may be viewed from a transdiagnostic perspective and there is evidence supporting a transdiagnostic form of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT-E). The aim of the present study was to compare CBT-E with interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), a leading alternative treatment for adults with an eating disorder. One hundred and thirty patients with any form of eating disorder (body mass index >17.5 to <40.0) were randomized to either CBT-E or IPT. Both treatments involved 20 sessions over 20 weeks followed by a 60-week closed follow-up period. Outcome was measured by independent blinded assessors. Twenty-nine participants (22.3%) did not complete treatment or were withdrawn. At posttreatment 65.5% of the CBT-E participants met criteria for remission compared with 33.3% of the IPT participants (p < 0.001). Over follow-up the proportion of participants meeting criteria for remission increased, particularly in the IPT condition, but the CBT-E remission rate remained higher (CBT-E 69.4%, IPT 49.0%; p = 0.028). The response to CBT-E was very similar to that observed in an earlier study. The findings indicate that CBT-E is potent treatment for the majority of outpatients with an eating disorder. IPT remains an alternative to CBT-E, but the response is less pronounced and slower to be expressed. Current controlled trials: ISRCTN 15562271. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available